tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-47297356853761193772024-02-14T12:54:33.039-08:00Saral Sarkar's writingsSaral Sarkarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14801618107395376433noreply@blogger.comBlogger67125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4729735685376119377.post-20441259311957215142023-01-11T04:13:00.000-08:002023-01-11T04:13:48.626-08:00How I Came Upon Ecology, the Entropy Law, and Georgescu-Roegen -- A Few Pages From My Memory <p> <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 14pt;">A few weeks ago, I read an amusing (though saddening) correspondence
between two professional economists: HF, a sustainability economist, and Dr. C,
an ecological economist:</span></p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: DE;">
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>HF had criticized Dr. C for not even
mentioning the name of Nicolas Georgescu-Roegen in his book on a green economy</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">. Dr. C. replied: “Naturally,
Georgescu-Roegen, who had been honored with the Nobel Prize for his work on the
subject, is known to us.” But, while writing a book, one cannot mention every
relevant author etc.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thereupon, HF thanked Dr. C. for his kind
reply, but added, inter alia: “…. Please allow me the following comment on your
knowledge about Georgescu-Roegen: The remarkable, in order not to say the
grotesque, point here is that Nicolas Georgescu-Roegen, as pioneer of
ecological economics, was not even regarded by the committee in charge as
deserving of receiving this honor.” <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This triggered off the following
pages from my memory:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Who is this late Nicolas Georgescu-Roegen (in the
following, NGR)? Among environmental activists and ecologically interested
persons, there are very few, who not only came across the name but also read
his main book <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Entropy Law and the
Economic Process</i> and some of his other writings. I guess, not all
professional economists nor all who studied economics at the university level
have heard a lecture on his theory and his views. They might be of interest and
useful, even very important for the very frustrated young environmental and
climate activists of today and those who are associated with them in groups
like <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Fridays for Future, X’tinction
Rebellion, Last Generation etc.</i> So let me try to make a simple presentation
thereof. Not being a good writer, let me try it in the style of a grandfather
telling a story from his young days to his grandchildren. I am after all 86
years old and the activists of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Fridays
For Future </i>etc. could be my grandchildren. I hope my readers will excuse me
the inexactitudes and the paltry reference details.<span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I was nine or ten
years old when the following occurred: We were then living in a village in West
Bengal (India). We were six children; I was the fifth of them. One day, I and
my immediately elder brother were standing alone in front of one of the many
ponds that southern West Bengal villages generally have. My brother Dilip,
although barely one-and-a half years older, was much smarter than I, who was
reputed in our family to be the simpleton of the lot.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Now,
I had a question that was troubling me for many days, and I thought Dilip might
be interested. The question that troubled me was as follows: My parents were
two in the beginning, and then we six children came. I asked Dilip: How can it
work?: Originally my father’s salary must have sufficed for him and his wife,
my mother. It was a two-member family. But then, within 12 years, it became an
eight-member family. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Dilip was really smart. He said: You
are stupid. Look at this pond. Four months ago, in April, the pond had this
little water (he showed the then water level with his fingers). And now? Look
at it after five months, it is full. Millions of rain drops fell from the sky in
the pond; they will vanish again. No problem. This happens every year. I
understood the logic of his example. I fell quiet, but I was not really satisfied.
I could not understand the similarity between the pond and the growth of our
family. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Decades later, I would understand it.
Dilip was talking of a sustainable system, whereas I was perturbed by the
exponential growth of an unsustainable one. Little did I know then that we were
discussing one of the big issues of ecology and economy.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The same question
came up in college where I had political economy as one of my subjects. One day,
the lecturer was teaching us about the Malthusian theory of population. You
should know it, in the 1950s, India was a very poverty-stricken country. I
could see it in the village where we lived in my childhood as well as in
Calcutta, where we lived in the 1950s. I was seventeen years old, and Calcutta
was in the 1950s a hotbed of leftist politics. All kinds of communist and
socialist parties had a strong following there. And the social science and
humanities faculties of our college were full of communist and Marxist
lecturers. As expected, this particular lecturer rejected the Malthusian theory
of population. I remember only one sentence of his lecture: “A man is not only
born with a mouth, but also with two hands.”<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In those days, at the impressionable
age of 17, in a poverty-stricken huge country like India, it was impossible for
a young person not to be influenced by communism and Marxism, particularly in
Calcutta. I absorbed much Marxist and socialist/communist ideology. But I was not
satisfied with the Marxist rejection of Malthus. Much later, I thought, Marx
simply was obstinate, unjust to another thinker who had expressed one part of
the truth about the human condition. But the 1950s, also the 1960s, were the era
of faith in eternal progress, development, and miracles that science and
technology were bringing to us, also in India. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">That faith was
shattered in the 1970s.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I did not become
an economist, nor a political scientist. I studied German, also in Germany, and
became a lecturer in German in Hyderabad, a large city in South India. Once, in
the late 1960s or early 1970s, a famous actor and dramaturge of the Bengali
stage happened to be in Hyderabad. The man was also known as an intellectual.
So the Bengalis of Hyderabad invited him to speak at a meeting of theirs, on
whatever he wanted to speak. It was an intellectual rambling talk. But one
thing that I still remember from that talk is as follows:<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Shambhu Mitra – that was the name of
the famous actor – said in the course of his talk: he had recently read a very
interesting small book, actually a lecture, by a British intellectual called C.
P. Snow. In the lecture entitled <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Two
Cultures</i>, Snow regretted the fact that in his country, generally,
scientists had no interest in literature and humanities and littérateurs
generally ignored the sciences, that there was hardly any exchange of thoughts
between the two groups of intellectuals. Snow called upon the two elite groups to
be more interested in the thinking of each other. He said, in the general
sense, to be more effective in their role as the elite of the country, “not
only should a professor of physics read some works of Shakespeare, but also a
professor of any of the humanities should e.g. know what the Second Law of
Thermodynamics says.” (inexact quotation – SS)<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I had thought I belonged to the
educated elite of India, and I did not know what the Second Law of
Thermodynamics was. I wanted to know something about it. In the early 1970s, there
was no computer in India and also no <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Wikipedia</i>.
So I began asking my students, many of whom were Engineers or students of
engineering; among them were also some lecturers in physics. But none could
give the answer. They mostly said, they had heard of it, but it was not so
important for their studies, nor for their future profession. After some failed
tries, I met a geophysicist who seemed to know what it was. But he was in a
hurry then. He said: O, if you want to know that, you must first learn what <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">entropy</i> is, and he went away. And all
the time I was asking myself why it should be so important for me to know what
these things said. I understood it a few years later.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">In 1972 or 1973, I
read the famous book <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Limits to Growth</i>
(Meadows et al.), the first report to the Club of Rome. That was a shock for
me, just as it was for many who had all along been talking of economic
development, progress, scientific development, socialism, capitalism with a
humane face and things like that. I thought, if what the book says is true,
then nothing will help. No amount of scientific discoveries and inventions, no
amount of planning will help, if the essential resources are limited and
exhaustible. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But was all that true? There were
many who refused to be perturbed. To take just one example: Prof. Beckerman,
the head of the faculty of economics at the University of Oxford, wrote that
the minerals contained in the top one mile of the Earth’s crust would suffice
for continuous economic growth for the next 100 million years. Others wrote
about the possibilities of substituting rare resources with more abundant ones.
More optimistic people thought of 100 percent recycling of exhaustible
resources. In sum, the vast majority of economists and experts in relevant
fields, as well as men in the street, refused to share the view that there are
limits to economic growth. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I also read the protocol of a
meeting of relevant Soviet scientists attached to the highest political bodies
of the of the state. They agreed with Meadows et al. so far as facts and
analyses were concerned. They agreed it was a problem, the limits, but they
criticized the authors for not considering that a socialist society approaches
the problem in a different way than a capitalist one. They did not elaborate,
in which different way.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So far as energy was concerned,
nobody disputed that the fossil fuels or fissionable materials such as uranium
and thorium were exhaustible. And everybody agreed that spent energy cannot be recycled.
But the main problem with nuclear power plants was more the risk of nuclear
accidents and radioactive pollution than exhaustibility of the resources. The
only question here was whether the risks were acceptable or not. From 1974
onwards (e.g. in Wyhl, Germany), there was vehement opposition from the people to
construction of further nuclear power plants. Also the huge construction costs
of such plants and the necessary safety measures were a strong deterrent.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So what was the solution of the energy
problem that the optimists came forward with? Fossil fuels were out, because
they were not only exhaustible but, also polluting and responsible for global
warming, power from nuclear fission was too risky and too costly. Nuclear
fusion power was(is) not developed yet. Deforesting the whole world for wood as
source of energy was not a proposition at all.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The kinetic energy of wind and the heat
(warmth)-energy of sunshine are known to humans from time immemorial – both resources
are inexhaustible (renewable) and nonpolluting. Also producing electricity from
them is possible. For some decades now, all kinds of environmentalists and
Greens have been proposing an ecological economy based mainly on electricity
produced by means of these two resources. Today, “clean energy,” “decarbonization“
of the economy, “green hydrogen”, “energy transition”, “green growth”, “hundred
percent renewables”, “sustainable development” etc. have become buzz words,
articles of faith, so to speak, though actually, till now, they are largely mere
slogans.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These propositions were so attractive
that at first, that is, in the early 1980s, I too superficially thought that it
was a plausible idea. But soon doubts also started cropping up. If these were
not mere slogans, but hopes with substantial scientific justification, then why
were some activists still advocating for natural gas as a fuel to replace coal?
Natural gas is of course a lesser evil than coal and oil, but it is a fossil
fuel nonetheless. Or why were some reputed environmental scientists, such as
the late James Lovelock of Gaia fame, advocating for more nuclear energy, and
not wind energy, to replace fossil fuels in the UK?<sup>1</sup> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">In the mid1980s,
finally, I found a popular science book entitled <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Entropy</i> written by Jeremy Rifkin. In this book I also found a
reference to a scientific paper of NGR on the question of solar energy,<sup>2</sup>
which had, in 1978, when the paper had been written, not yet become an article
of faith of all environmentalists and Greens. I read the paper as soon as I got
it. In it, NGR drew a distinction between <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: red;">feasibility</span></i></b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i>and <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: red;">viability</span></i></b>,
and came to the conclusion that solar electrical energy is of course feasible, but
it is not viable. I cannot here quote the whole paper of NGR. But there is
space here for a few short passages –<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>from NGR’s original paper and my book,<sup>3 </sup><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>in which I have summarized his argument. NGR,
who had, for this paper, examined the case of solar energy produced with
aluminum collector technology, wrote (paraphrased by SS): Can the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: red;">second generation</span></i><span style="color: red;"> </span>of solar power plants be built using the solar energy
produced by the first generation? NGRs answer was no, at least not yet. A
viable technology is one that is capable of “reproducing” itself after it has
been brought into existence by means of an earlier technology. Illustrating the
point, he writes: “The first bronze hammer …. was produced by some stone
hammers. However, from that moment on, all bronze hammers were hammered only by
bronze hammers.” (NGR 1978: 18). To take an illustration from the energy sector,
the first ton of coal was extracted by using human and animal muscle power. But
soon, machines driven by coal energy were producing the capital equipment
necessary to extract coal, and such equipment was itself to be driven by coal
energy. This is not the case with solar energy. All the necessary equipment,
including solar collectors, are produced through processes based on sources of
energy other than the sun (coal, oil, uranium etc.). Solar energy is,
therefore, feasible only so long as other sources of energy are available. That
means it is not viable.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Later, when photovoltaic solar energy
started dominating the scene, the argument remained the same. They are
feasible, but not viable. Currently, we know that 70 percent of all
photovoltaic-panels sold in the world are made in China, where coal is by far
the greatest source of energy, not the sun (nor wind or flowing water).<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Same is the case with electricity
from wind energy. The turbines, rotor blades, concrete towers etc. – are all
produced with energy based mainly on conventional sources.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I have dealt with the subject in numerous
articles, all published on my blog-site.<sup>4 </sup><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So there is no need to elaborate on it any further.
To sum up, according to NGR, it may be impossible to solve the problem, for the
intensity of solar radiation reaching ground level is extremely low. And neither
sunshine nor blowing wind is available all the time.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Here enters the Second Law of
Thermodynamics (often also called the Entropy Law).<sup>5<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></sup>In and on the surface of the sun, the
temperature is unimaginably high. But when it reaches the surface of the earth,
it is extremely low. What happens is that on its way to the earth solar radiation
(sunshine) <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">dissipates</i>, its entropy
increases. In order to make it useable for producing electricity, we have to
collect (concentrate) the dissipated solar radiation – by means of aluminum
mirrors or photovoltaic solar panels. These and all the related equipment from
A to Z has first to be produced, for which energy from other sources has to be
spent, the quantity of which is usually more than what is finally produced by
the solar thermal and photovoltaic power plants. That means their <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: red;">energy balance</span></i></b><span style="color: red;"> </span>is
negative. Same is the case with wind electricity.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>NGR pointed out that when we use
matter (materials) for any purpose, it also undergoes entropy increase. In
common parlance, we call it wear and tear. In industrial production processes
it leads to waste production. Waste can of course be recycled, but that again
requires expenditure of energy. Moreover, some part of the matter always gets
irretrievably dissipated, which is why hundred percent recycling is never
possible.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>All scientists agree that the Entropy
Law is a universal law, and that it can never be overridden. It is having its
effect everywhere, even in societies as a whole. Much later, I read a book
entitled <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Social Entropy</i> by Manfred
Wöhlke, where the author maintains that it is the Entropy Law that is in effect
when we observe that formerly well-functioning cohesive societies are breaking
down (dissipating, so to speak) and states becoming failed states.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I also read in the 1980s a debate in the
pages of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Ecologist</i> – in those
days the leading theoretical journal of the ecologists and environmental
activists – in which Edward Goldsmith (the editor of the journal and a leading
writer on ecological issues) tried to refute the universality and
incontrovertibility of the Entropy Law, that NGR was asserting. Goldsmith gave
the example of plants which sprout by themselves from the soil after the
previous generation dies away. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To Goldsmiths “refutation” NGR replied
that plants do not reproduce themselves through any mystical unending source of
energy, but that it is the suns’ energy that is enabling them as well as any
life that exists, not only to live, but also to reproduce themselves, and that the
life process would end when the sun dies out due to the effect of the Entropy Law.
NGR had entitled his main theoretical book <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The
Entropy Law and the Economic Process </i>(1971)<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">.</i> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Conclusion<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">In the 1960s and 1970s, when NGR wrote his main theoretical book and the
papers that I could read, his focus was on the non-renewability and hence
exhaustibility of the resources that we need. He calls the supplies of
non-renewable energy sources and other minerals in low-entropy state “the
limited dowry of mankind’s existence on earth”. A dowry is not only a limited
but also a one-off gift, Therefore, Georgescu-Roegen comes to the logical
conclusion:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 35.4pt; mso-add-space: auto;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“Even with a
constant <span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;">population and a
constant flow per capita </span>of mined resources, mankind's dowry will ultimately
be exhausted if the career of the human species is not brought to an end
earlier by other factors.” (1971)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">By “other factors”
he must have meant a nuclear war between the superpowers. Global warming was
not a matter of concern until the second half of the 1980s. But today, as we
know, scientists are afraid that due to global warming and climate change the
Earth may soon become an “uninhabitable planet” – title of a three to five
years old book. But the resource problem has not disappeared. I think it cannot
be solved, for our whole present-day economy has been built up and is running
on the basis of mined resources, all of which, especially the fossil fuels,
will ultimately be exhausted sooner or later.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On the prospect of mankind on the
Earth, NGR wrote in a fit of pessimism,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 35.45pt; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">"Will mankind listen to any program that implies
a constriction of its addiction to exosomatic comfort? Perhaps the destiny of
man is to have a short, but fiery, exciting and extravagant life rather than a
long, uneventful and vegetative existence. Let other species – the amoebas, for
example – which have no spiritual ambitions inherit an earth still bathed in plenty
of sunshine." (1972) <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I think NGR has here
made a small mistake. What will come to an end is not exactly the career of the
human species on the Earth, but that of the industrial society. The human
species is living on the planet since before any resources were mined.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: center;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">------------OOO------------<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Notes</span></u></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">. </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">1. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">See </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">also </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">my article . </span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><a href="http://eco-socialist.blogspot.com/2022/08/the-ecological-clarity-that-ukraine-war.html"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #336699; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The Ecological Clarity
that the Ukraine War brings – A Paradox and Its Explanation</span></a></span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> on my blog site.(see note No. 4)<br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">2.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Nicolas Georgescu-Roegen: <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Technology Assessment: The Case of the Direct Use of</i> Solar Energy.<br />
3. Saral Sarkar: <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Eco-Socialism or
Eco-Capitalism.<br />
</i></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">4. My blog site: http//eco-socialist,blogspot.com<br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">5.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"> "The
second law of thermodynamics says that entropy always increases with time".
(quote from internet).</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I prefer to use the term Entropy Law,
for the term <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">thermodynamics</i> may
erroneously suggest that the law applies only to heat transmission. But, as NGR
pointed out elsewhere, dissipation inevitably occurs also when we use matter
(materials) for any purpose.<o:p></o:p></span></p>Saral Sarkarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14801618107395376433noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4729735685376119377.post-5964349525579974512022-08-10T01:14:00.002-07:002022-08-10T01:53:26.386-07:00The Ecological Clarity that the Ukraine War brings – A Paradox and Its Explanation<p> <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Any modern-day war in and between rich industrial
countries has bad ecological impacts. The amount of destroyed built-up material
is a wastage that has to be replaced, which entails negative ecological impacts
through mining and smelting of non-renewable resources. Same is the case with
used up metals and other materials contained in equipment of war and munition.
All this is known since long and applies also to the war in Ukraine. What,
however, is especially remarkable in the case of the Ukraine War, is the
clarity it brings to some dodgy ecological issues.</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Background of some recent Facts</span></i></b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Facts are nearly always the best proof of the
correctness or otherwise of political, economic, and ecological opinions and
theories. So I want first to present here a selection of recent facts. Let me
begin <span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;">with two scenes </span>from
German TV broadcasts.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After the
beginning of the Ukraine war, many Europeans, but especially the Germans, who
since long have been importing huge quantities of relatively cheap Russian
natural gas for domestic heating and many industrial purposes, became panicky
over whether the Russians would continue to deliver gas in terms of the
contract in spite of the various economic sanctions imposed on them by the EU.
In the course of his frantic search for alternative sources of natural gas,
Robert Habeck, the Green economy minister in the current “traffic-Light”
coalition government went <span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;">to
Qatar </span>and met the equally young Emir of the small but gas-rich country.
During the handshake – one could see that in the TV-Report – Habeck made a low
bow in the style of an humble supplicant, while the Emir stood with his head
held high in the style of a patron.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The next
scene: the former foreign minister <span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;">Sigmar Gabriel of the SPD, now a political has-been,</span> derided the
present coalition with the words: “It is really a change of times when the
economy minister Habeck of the Green Party breathes new life into CO<sub>2</sub>-emitting
coal-fired power plants, and the champion of an austerity policy finance
minister Lindner of the FDP (Free Democratic Party) incurs hundreds of millions
of Euro new debt.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Fact is also
<span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;">that many other states are
taking several retro-steps like building <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">new
</i>coal-fired and nuclear power plants</span>. They are doing this because
they are anxious to keep their industries and infrastructures, and their whole
industrial or half<span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;">-industrial
mode of living </span>supplied with sufficient and sufficiently cheap energy.
Worldwide, at present, 200 <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">new</i></b> coal-fired power plants are
being built. In<span style="color: red;"> </span><span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;">Germany, of course, they are not building any new
coal-fired power plants after <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Datteln 4</i>
(completed in 2019), but they are now repealing the earlier decision to close
down all lignite-fired power plants </span>soon. Moreover, they are planning to
import from the USA large quantities of LNG extracted by the <span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;">fracking</span> method which was
earlier much reviled by ecologists and the Greens for its evil polluting
effects. Together with the Netherlands government, they are also considering
gas extraction from under the <span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;">mud
flats </span>of the North Sea – formerly, for ecological reasons, a prohibited
zone for such purposes. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="background: white; margin-bottom: 9pt; mso-add-space: auto;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As for <span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;">nuclear power </span>–<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>opposed by all kinds of ecologists and Green
parties since 1974 –, it is enjoying a new lease of life. At present, </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #202124; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: DE;">eight </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: DE; mso-themecolor: text1;">European countries are building <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">new</i> reactors,</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #202124; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: DE;"> or are seriously planning
to build new ones. France has decided to keep all its nuclear power plants
running. And the EU has decided to change its energy taxonomy, henceforth
calling natural gas and nuclear energy green energy.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="background: white; mso-add-space: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Similar things are happening all over the
world. <span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;">China</span><span style="color: red;"> </span><span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;">has
recently been building more and more new coal-fired power plants. The tempo is
increasing. For instance, in March 2020 alone, the authorities gave permission
for building of more coal-power capacity (7.960 Megawatt) than in the whole
year 2019 (6.310 Megawatt). India </span>is pursuing a similar policy. This is
manifested in the data on permission for opening new coal mines. Recently, some
40 such permissions have been given. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="background: white; mso-add-space: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>All over the world, at present, also about
55 new nuclear power plants (NPP) are being built. The <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;">German Angst</span></i><span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;"> </span>of nuclear power does not
appear to be too great anywhere else, not even in the underdeveloped world. In
India, e.g. at present, two NPPs are being built, in Bangladesh one. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This worldwide trend has naturally led to
very bad results for the climate. Instead of going down, total Co<sub>2</sub>
emission is continually increasing. According to International Energy Agency
(IEA), in 2021, globally, 36.3 billion tons of CO<sub>2 –</sub>equivalents of
green-house gases were emitted. That is two billion tons more than the figure
for 2020. In Germany, after going down steadily since 1990, total CO<sub>2</sub>
emission is again rising. Whereas in 2020 it was 644 million tons, in 2021 it
was 675 million tons. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In view of the above-mentioned facts and
figures, Antonio Gutierrez, General Secretary of the United Nations, said in
despair: “We are committing collective suicide.” Many Germans are thinking that
the ambitious goal of energy transition has failed – among them are many
leading politicians, such as Michael Kretschmer, Chief Minister of the province
of Saxony. Chancellor Scholz and leading Green politicians however think that,
despite the obvious setbacks, the energy transition can still be achieved. In
their despair, many other European politicians – particularly the French
President Macron – have recently declared nuclear power and natural gas to be
“green energy”. The German Green Party, but also those of Europe as a whole,
the main pillar of whose founding ideology was opposition to nuclear power, are
of course resisting. But they may soon buckle.</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The Paradox</span></i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Obviously, it is a paradox. The din of the Ukraine
War, the embargo on Russian oil etc. and the fear of Russia turning off the gas
taps are only four and a half months old, whereas the euphoric assertions of
low costs and all round efficacy and adaptability of the renewable energies are
quite old. Let us take three examples:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The late <span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;">Herman Scheer</span><span style="color: red;">, </span>the then President of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Eurosolar</i>, and high priest of solar energy, wrote in 1999:</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 35.9pt;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">“For an
inconceivably long time the sun will donate its energy to humans, animals, and
plants. And it will do that so lavishly that it could satisfy even the most
sumptuous energy needs of the worlds of humans, animals and plants experiencing
drastic growth: The sun supplies us every year 15,000 times more energy than
what the world population commercially consumes …” <sup>1<o:p></o:p></sup></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">In
1999, this euphoria was a bit too far away from the then reality. Photovoltaic
and other “renewable” and “clean” energy technologies were actually still too
costly. But in 2014 came good news. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: DE; mso-themecolor: text1;">Ottmar Edenhofer, economist and </span><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: DE;">one of the
three co-chairs of the third working group of the IPCC, said something that
made us sit up and take notice. He said: “It would not cost us the world to
save the planet.” The cost of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius
would, he said, be only 0.06 percent less yearly economic growth than what
would otherwise be possible. And </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">Paul Krugman</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">, Nobel Laureate in Economics, wrote a few weeks later
in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">NEW York Times</i> an article entitled</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: DE;"> <i>Climate Change: Salvation Gets Cheap.</i> Referring to the
glad tidings on the cost of saving the planet coming from the IPCC, Krugman
wrote the [problem of] climate threat is solved. He even wrote: “… there’s
no reason we can’t become richer while reducing our impact on the <i>environment</i>.”
The reason behind this euphoria was that prices of photovoltaic panels were
tumbling. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListBulletCxSpFirst" style="margin-left: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: none; tab-stops: 35.4pt; text-indent: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And now a more recent example: <span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;">Greta Thunberg </span>founder-leader
of the teenager climate protection group <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Fridays
for Future</i>, that is simply demanding <span style="color: #333333;">that the
politicians finally do something decisive about the problem, was once asked,
what then the politicians should do. She is reported to have replied: Why do
you ask me? I am only a schoolgirl. Ask the scientists (as if all that the
scientists advise were so easy to do!). She once wrote, all </span><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">the technologies needed for the
solution of the problem were already there</span><span style="color: #333333;">.
They only needed to be used. This was nothing concrete, though many other young
people</span> are glibly mouthing concrete “solutions” like <span style="color: #333333;">their radical elder brothers do: “shut down all coal
mines immediately”, “let all fossil fuels remain in the ground”, “all energy
supply must come from renewable sources only” etc. etc.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoListBulletCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: none; tab-stops: 35.4pt; text-indent: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And now, in 2022, this mad
rush for alternative sources of natural gas – a fossil fuel, mind you –<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>and the US President Biden eating his words
of making Saudi Crown Prince Salman a pariah and going to him with the request
to increase oil supply on the world market. Inevitably, the question comes to
mind: Why couldn’t the renewable energy technologies long ago replace the
fossil fuels and nuclear energy? How do we explain this about-turn in energy
policy?</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; text-indent: 0cm;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoListBulletCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: none; tab-stops: 35.4pt; text-indent: 0cm;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">An Explanation of the Paradox</span></i><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; text-indent: 0cm;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoListBulletCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: none; tab-stops: 35.4pt; text-indent: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">This euphoria, which had begun much earlier than 1999, was all along
baseless. For the sake of brevity, I shall here present only the main points of
my arguments and won’t go into details, which the interested reader can find in
my theoretical book<sup>2</sup> and many articles in my blog. <sup>2</sup>):<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListBulletCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: none; tab-stops: 35.4pt; text-indent: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(1) </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">India </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">e.g. is a tropical sunbathed country.
The sun nearly uninterruptedly shines nine months a year. Even in the rainy
season the sky is not clouded all the time and everywhere. And the South-West
and North-East monsoon winds plus our long coast line can provide ample
suitable sites for setting up wind-power facilities. Highly qualified engineers
and technicians are also not scarce. Similar are the conditions in </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">China</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">. So why don’t
the Indian and Chinese capitalists ditch much reviled fossil fuels, </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">coal</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> in particular,
as our main source of power and invest heavily in solar and wind-energy
industries? Can’t they calculate chances of making profit? Of course, they can.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListBulletCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: none; tab-stops: 35.4pt; text-indent: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(2) The reason why capitalists
do not want to give up fossil fuels, particularly the super versatile
petroleum, is that they are the most profitable sources of energy. That is
mainly because their </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">energy density</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"> is much higher than that of the renewable sources sun
and wind. Since for capitalists the ecological and social costs of fossil fuels
are mere externalities, they, not being idealists and fashion-conscious,
naturally prefer the fossil fuels.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListBulletCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: none; tab-stops: 35.4pt; text-indent: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Moreover,
ordinary people are not willing to pay higher prices for energy, not even in
rich industrial countries. This was demonstrated in France by the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">yellow vests</i> movement, the participants
in which even violently, and successfully, resisted the increase in prices of
fossil fuels for automobiles.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListBulletCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: none; tab-stops: 35.4pt; text-indent: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No large
scale use of liquid hydrogen made by using “renewable” energy (so-called “green
hydrogen”) is yet being tried. Through any conversion of energy from one
state/form to another, a lot of the original amount of energy gets lost. So
“green hydrogen” is much costlier and much less profitable than any original
form of energy. The greater part of the batteries of e-cars of the world are
for this reason still loaded up with electricity made by using conventional
fuels, not with solar or wind electricity. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListBulletCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: none; tab-stops: 35.4pt; text-indent: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(3) Krugman
and all others of that ilk always look at the </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">market price</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">of solar panels (and wind turbines), which
indeed tumbled in the recent past. But serious energy scientists, when they try
to judge the basic cost and efficacy of energy technologies, compare mainly
their </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">EROEI</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">(Energy return on energy
invested) figures.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListBulletCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: none; tab-stops: 35.4pt; text-indent: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The market price of any
commodity is in principle a very uncertain thing. It can vary from time to time
and place to place, and it depends on many variable and volatile factors:
wages, taxes, subsidies, distances etc. But, given that technologies used for
the manufacture of solar panels, wind turbines etc. are more or less the same
everywhere, the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">amount</i> of energy
required to be invested, from A to Z, for manufacturing them (the </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">EI</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> of the term </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">EROEI</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">) must be roughly the same everywhere,
and hence they can be compared. The </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">ER</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> of the term (energy return) varies from
place to place, depending on availability of sunshine and blowing wind.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListBulletCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: none; tab-stops: 35.4pt; text-indent: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To measure the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">ER</i> of any energy technology is easy. We
just need to attach a meter to the end point of the system. But to measure its <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">EI</i> is difficult. The equipment needed to
produce e.g. solar panels have first to be produced themselves – beginning with
all the mining machinery (excavators e.g.) for mining the necessary minerals
all the way upwards to the metal frame on which the solar panels are mounted.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListBulletCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: none; tab-stops: 35.4pt; text-indent: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of course, an excavator e.g.
is not used for producing just one solar panel. But the prorata energy
consumption of any equipment used in any serially produced object can be <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">estimated</i>. In this estimating process
many mistakes can be and indeed are made, many steps in the production line are
ignored. This explains why different researchers can and do present very
different, often exaggeratedly optimistic estimates of the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">EROEI</i> (aka net energy) of renewable energy technologies. This is
why many false hopes of 100 percent renewable energies, total energy transition
etc. could be circulated – particularly by the Green Parties. How controversial
the matter still is can be seen in a recent paper.<sup>3 </sup>But for me, the
proof of the pudding is in the eating.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListBulletCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: none; tab-stops: 35.4pt; text-indent: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One may now ask: why do we
then hear (e.g. in Germany) that today renewable energies are cheaper than
coal-fired energy? One brief reply: in Germany, electricity production in
coal-fired power plants is almost entirely done with lignite excavated in
Germany with equipment made in Germany by high-wage German workers. The solar
panels e.g. used in Germany are however all made in China, by using coal-fired
electricity and the labor of low-wage Chinese workers. State subsidies, tax
benefits etc. also play a role.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListBulletCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: none; tab-stops: 35.4pt; text-indent: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The atmosphere of the earth is
a global affair. It does not matter at all where the green-house gases are
emitted, they are distributed by the winds in the whole atmosphere. And the
whole earth warms up as a result.</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; text-indent: 0cm;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoListBulletCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: none; tab-stops: 35.4pt; text-indent: 0cm;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Conclusion</span></i><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; text-indent: 0cm;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoListBulletCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: none; tab-stops: 35.4pt; text-indent: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The truth of the matter has been sufficiently revealed in the months
following the beginning of the Ukraine War. </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Industrial society</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">is basically and mainly a product of fossil fuels. A whole industrial
society cannot be run without these fuels. And, moreover, the global ecology
problem, the various kinds of global pollution, cannot be reduced to the issue
of climate change and green-house gas emissions. It is also and mainly a
question of growing amount of resources that a growing number humans consume in
an industrial way. Global warming and its consequences are just symptoms of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">too much</i> consumption of fossil fuels and
other resources.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListBulletCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: none; tab-stops: 35.4pt; text-indent: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I have above referred to Greta
Thunberg’s belief that all </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">the
technologies needed for the solution of the climate change problem were already
there</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">. That they only needed to be used.
Below the article in which I read this opinion of Thunberg was a comment made
by a reader. It read: “</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">The greatest minds in
the Western world are working on this.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> They have produced <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">no solution, because there is none.”<o:p></o:p></i></span></p>
<p class="MsoListBulletCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: none; tab-stops: 35.4pt; text-indent: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This comment
is convincing, but only partly. There is no solution because nobody is prepared
to ditch the industrial society that has made life so comfortable for so many
people. “The greatest minds” have failed to find a solution because they all
want to have their cake and eat it too. If they were prepared to give up their
addiction to the industrial society and their self-sanctification, then the
problems could be solved: with a steady state economy at a much lower level
with just two billion humans living on the earth.</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; text-indent: 0cm;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoListBulletCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: none; tab-stops: 35.4pt; text-indent: 0cm;"><span style="color: red; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">References:</span><span style="color: red; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; text-indent: 0cm;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoListBulletCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: none; tab-stops: 35.4pt; text-indent: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">1.
Hermann Scheer (1999: 66) <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Solare
Weltwirtschaft: Strategie für die okologische Moderne.</i> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Munich:
Antje Kunstmann.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListBulletCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: none; tab-stops: 35.4pt; text-indent: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">2. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: #333333;">Eco-Socialism or
Eco-Capitalism. A critical Analysis of Humanity’s Fundamental Choices</span></i><span style="color: #333333;">. 1999, London (Zed Books).<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoListBulletCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: none; tab-stops: 35.4pt; text-indent: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">My blog:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListBulletCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: none; tab-stops: 35.4pt; text-indent: 0cm;"><a href="http://www.eco-socialist.blogspot.com/"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">www.eco-socialist.blogspot.com</span></a><span class="MsoHyperlink"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoListBulletCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: none; tab-stops: 35.4pt; text-indent: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">3. “Renewables K.0.-ed by EROEI?”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListBulletCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: none; tab-stops: 35.4pt; text-indent: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">by Craig Morris<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListBulletCxSpLast" style="margin-left: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: none; tab-stops: 35.4pt; text-indent: 0cm;"><a href="https://energytransition.org/2014/09/renewables-ko-by-eroi/"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">https://energytransition.org/2014/09/renewables-ko-by-eroi/</span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>Saral Sarkarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14801618107395376433noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4729735685376119377.post-75766973608825435102021-11-13T02:06:00.003-08:002021-11-13T13:51:10.504-08:00Climate Crisis: Bangladesh May Drown, Pakistan May Face Severe Droughts<p><span style="font-size: 14pt;">An Indian friend of
mine, Sri Sagar Dhara, who is attending the COP 26 meeting, has sent a report
from Glasgow on the prospects for Bangladesh and Pakistan in the year 2100. Being
a South Asian (Indian) myself, I read it with great interest, which caused the
following thoughts to occur in my mind.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Please read the highly interesting article
of Sagar first. Link <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><a href="https://countercurrents.org/2021/11/cop26-by-2100-bangladesh-may-drown-pakistan-likely-to-face-severe-water-shortage-fear-experts/"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">https://countercurrents.org/2021/11/cop26-by-2100-bangladesh-may-drown-pakistan-likely-to-face-severe-water-shortage-fear-experts/</span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">Then my comments.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Saral’s Comments<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I thank Sagar
Dhara for this article focusing attention, unusually, on Bangladesh and
Pakistan, two of India’s “dear” neighbors, who after all are no small islands
in the Pacific or the Indian Ocean. How dear they are to us has been
demonstrated by the recent NRC exercise in Assam and the three wars at India’s
Western front. The description of the plight of the people of Bangladesh and
Pakistan in the near future is, I hope, realistic, coming as they do from
knowledgeable people from the two countries. But Sagar’s conclusion? Is it at
all realistic? And his exhortation to us Indians? What chance does it have of
being accepted? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Empty Idealism or Down-to-Earth Realism<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Sagar writes: “…. <span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;">should India help? As a country that
believes in </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: red;">vasudaiva kutumbakam</span></i><span style="color: red;"> </span><span style="color: #4c5155;">(the whole world is a family), of course India should
help … .” “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Vasudaiva kutumbakam</i>” is a
noble, but, sorry to say, empty ideal. I have heard/read it as a slogan a few
times in the speeches and writings generated by outwardly idealist NGO
activists. The slogan itself was perhaps coined by some sage in ancient India
some three thousand years ago. But today, it is a far cry from the reality. I
do not know when “India” ever believed in this ideal. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the Christian Western world, I
have more often heard the cynical saying: “Everybody for himself and God for
all”. That is also roughly the conclusion of human ethologists on the reality
of human nature. The current treatment meted out to illegal migrants at the
Polish-Belarussian border corroborates this. <br />
</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Empty idealism devoid of all
realism is the bane of NGO welfare activities. Two years ago, at a big
gathering of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Fridays for Future</i>, I
heard a speech by a young woman who is active in the efforts to save illegal
African migrants from drowning in the Mediterranean Sea and help them reach the
shores of Europe and enjoy a better life there. She asserted inter alia “every
human being has a right to choose the country where (s)he wants to live.” I do
not know where other than in her fertile imagination this right has been
codified. But I know that her activities are promoting fascism in Europe as a
reaction.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A German politician, the then
President of the state, whose traditional task it is to give idealist speeches
in high-flown language, said in 2015 or 2016, at the height of the illegal
migrants crisis in Germany, something like this: “Our hearts are very big, but
our capacity is limited”, whereby he stretched his arms on two sides to make
the sign of embracing people. He meant Germany’s capacity to accept immigrants.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">No Solution ?<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Sagar writes, the
people of these two countries would suffer for “no fault of theirs”. That is
roughly true. But not entirely. Nobody else is to blame other than those
Bangaldeshis (and West-Bengalis) who in the past went farther and farther
south, clear cut parts of the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sunderbans </i>and
settled down on the very low-lying delta areas. Such flood-prone and regularly
cyclone-ravaged low lying areas should not have been inhabited at all in the
first place.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I understand, population pressure did
not leave many ordinary poor people any other choice. But surely, it is not the
Western imperialists that created the population pressure in Bangladesh (and
West Bengal). Bangladesh became an independent country in 1971 when its
population amounted to 65.5 million. Today, i.e. in 2020 figures, it stands at <span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;">164.7 </span>million. In the same
period, Pakistan’s population rose from 59.73 to 220.9 million (Source:
Internet, Google). The leadership of these countries, usually highly educated
and well-informed, could have done something at least in this area of policy,
which has been fully under their control. If they had, the suffering today
would have been much less.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Sagar reports: a principal scientific
officer from Pakistan, when asked, “<span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;">Does Pakistan have a solution?”, replied “No”. An apparently rich farmer
from Bangladesh, who, mind you, has the financial means to travel to Glasgow
and stay there for a few days, suggested the solution that India should accept
climate refugees from Bangladesh. This is surprising, capitulation!<br />
</span><span style="color: #4c5155;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It
is true that, climate change being a global problem, Bangladesh and Pakistan cannot
tackle all their climate change related problems on their own. But nor can
India do that. And in the future, India too will require help from the countries
to tackle climate change impacts on its territory.<br />
</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So can anything be done at
all? At least to mitigate the bad effects of climate change, if not to solve
the whole problem? I think yes. World Bank sources say that at present, the
population growth rates of the three countries are as follows: Bangladesh - 1%,
Pakistan - 2%, India - 1%. That means, at current rates, every year, the
population of Bangladesh is growing by 1.64 mil., that of Pakistan by 2.29
mil., and that of India by 13.8 mil. Obviously, in this area at least, these
countries could do much more to take off the pressure. This is the easiest
thing to do. Other things are much more difficult. For, as I formulated
two-three years ago as an impossibility theorem:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 35.4pt; mso-add-space: auto;"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">“It is impossible to fulfill the
continuously growing demands, wishes, aspirations and ambitions (100 per cent
renewables for instance) of a continuously growing world population while
our resource base is continuously dwindling and the ability
of nature to absorb man-made pollution is continuously diminishing. It is
a lunatic idea that</span></i><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> </span></i><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">in a finite world infinite growth is
possible.”</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Dr. Manmohan Singh, the then PM of India,
said already some 10 years ago, he had the most difficult task of creating 10
million new jobs every year. How can then the present-day government create
jobs in India also for the climate refugees of Bangladesh and Pakistan?<o:p></o:p></span></p>Saral Sarkarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14801618107395376433noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4729735685376119377.post-91879275800576647812021-11-01T02:51:00.000-07:002021-11-01T02:51:52.907-07:00THE COMING COLLAPSE<p><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14pt;">On the eve of
the COP 26, UN’s world climate conference (to begin in Glasgow on 31. October.
2021), Boris Johnson, Prime Minister of the host country UK, said in Rome the
following:</span></p>
<p style="background: white; margin-bottom: 21.0pt; margin-left: 35.4pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">“This is our </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">memento
mori</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">,” (</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">‘Remember that you will die’.) <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">….</i></span><em><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 14.0pt; font-style: normal; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">“After
its fall, the level of education in </span></em><em><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-size: 14.0pt; font-style: normal; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">Rome</span></em><em><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 14.0pt; font-style: normal; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">, the construction skills went down, the marvelous
villas were lost, even the livestock shrunk in size. The same thing can happen
to us if we don’t act against climate change now.”</span></em><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> He said further that global warming will
spur </span></i><em><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 14.0pt; font-style: normal; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">“colossal
migrations, shortages of food and water, and many other conflicts.”<o:p></o:p></span></em></p>
<p style="background: white; margin-bottom: 21.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Johnson was optimistic that modern
societies have the capacity to mitigate the negative effects of humans on the
planet. (</span><a href="https://www.rt.com/uk/538937-boris-johnson-ancient-rome/"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">https://www.rt.com/uk/538937-boris-johnson-ancient-rome/</span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">). I am not so
optimistic. I am of the opinion that particularly modern societies are not
capable of mitigating this impending collapse. <br />
<span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I have dealt with this topic in an earlier
short essay posted on this blog on 1. October 2019 (</span></span><a href="http://eco-socialist.blogspot.com/2019/10/is-collapse-of-our-civilization.html"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">http://eco-socialist.blogspot.com/2019/10/is-collapse-of-our-civilization.html</span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">). Recently, I read a review article on some books on this topic
published in the journal<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nature (</span><a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00436-3"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00436-3</span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">). Thereupon I wrote another short piece in which I explained why I
disagree with the politician Boris Johnson as well as with the scholar-authors
reviewed in the said article in Nature. It is reproduced below:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="center" style="background: white; margin-bottom: 21.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: center;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">oooooo<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="background: white; margin-bottom: 21.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #222222; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I sincerely thank Nadarajah for
posting this. Even to read just a book review is better than not to read
anything on this unpleasant subject simply because the books are too
discouragingly long. While reading the review, the following thoughts occurred
to me:<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I am convinced that our present-day
civilization is heading for a collapse, for I cannot see that we humans have
resolved to do the </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">needful </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #222222; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">to mitigate, let alone avert the various
crises converging to result in an inevitable collapse. The first and the most
important things to do for the purpose would have been to stop all further
economic and population growth in the world. But the leaders of the world have
not resolved to do that. On the contrary, they are all actively pursuing the
goal of continuous economic growth and passively tolerating the continuous
spontaneous growth of world population. The collapse would not be like a
big-bang bomb blast, it would happen gradually, but, from now on, more or less
rapidly. In fact, the process has already begun.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="background: white; margin-bottom: 21.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Societies, Civilizations, Cultures<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="background: white; margin-bottom: 21.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #222222; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">If we are allowed to go only by
the short presentations in the review, the authors of the books have dealt
mainly with the collapse of </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">societies </span></i></b><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">that emerged </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #222222; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">in different particular </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">civilizations</span></i></b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> </span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">obtaining</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #222222; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> at the time.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Most people use these terms
interchangeably, meaning the same thing. But it is useful to differentiate
between them. Let us use the term <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">society</i>
in the following sense: a more or less large group of people living under more
or less similar social and religious hierarchical systems having more or less
same/similar <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">social</i> laws, norms,
rituals and moral codes. And let us use the term <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">civilization </i>to imply a certain level of state formation, a certain
level of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">material and </i></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">technological</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">development</i></span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #222222; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> covering
housing, clothing, transportation, communication, techniques of production of
food and other useful things, formalized laws such as criminal laws, property
laws and laws governing other material relations which are generally brought
into force by the rulers of the particular historical time.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Here I do not intend to elaborate on
the terms <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">societies, cultures and
civilizations</i>. It may suffice to give a few examples: Samuel Huntington
gave his most famous book the title “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Clash
of Civilizations</i>”, whereas in its German translation, it is called “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Kampf der Kulturen</i>. We in India e.g.
speak of Hindu culture (with its sub-cultures), Muslim culture etc., although
we are all, more or less, living in the same civilization, half industrial and
half rural, where e.g. both motor vehicles and bullock carts are used as means
of transportation.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of course these things are always in a
state of flux, border lines between the terms are often blurred. But I hope
readers understand what I mean. I would like to conclude this paragraph with a
quote. Knowledgeable people use the word “culture” in its
social-anthropological meaning, namely “that complex whole which includes
knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, customs, and any other capabilities and
habits acquired by man as a member of society” In this meaning “culture”
includes also “the material organization of life”, that is, “social and
economic </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">institutions.</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #222222; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">” [Edwards,
Paul (ed.) 1967] <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="background: white; margin-bottom: 21.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">What is collapsing Today?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="background: white; margin-bottom: 21.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #222222; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I am a bit disappointed that the
reviewed authors have addressed the subject as so many case studies, which they
have done with a </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">‘retrospectoscope’</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"> Of course, the collection is very good history writing. But our </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">present-day
civilization</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"> is quite different from those of
the past, those of the Rapa Nui, the medieval Mayans, the ancient Sumerians
etc., and even from the high civilization of the classical Romans. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is different in that none of the
past ones were </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">global</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"> like our present
one. In none of the past civilizations countries were so dependent on imports
and exports of goods and technologies for their economic prosperity or survival
as the countries of today. To mention just a few more examples, there simply
was no global, not to speak of instant, communication before our times, no
cheap means of travelling all over the world, no great similarity of the
life-style of the rich and the middle classes in all countries, no similarity
of the diseases they suffer from (Covid-19 e.g.) and the healing technologies
they use, no identity of the knowledge they impart to their students etc. etc.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of course, the </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">cultures </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">are not converging yet. Their differences still remain, but the gaps are
slowly closing, The different religions are still there. And although English
has become the lingua franca all over the world, the vernacular languages are
not disappearing, on the contrary. These two things – religions and vernacular
languages – are becoming more and more the cores of cultural identities that
are often causing conflicts. But that is a different subject.<br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #222222; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Our present-day civilization
is different in another very important respect. Whereas in the previous ones, </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">energy
supply for work</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #222222; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> was mainly based on human and animal labor, that of ours
is mainly based on </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">fossil fuels. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #222222; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Whereas the
former sort – human and animal labor – was eminently renewable, fossil fuels
are eminently </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">nonrenewable</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #222222; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">, hence ultimately </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">exhaustible.
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #222222; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Wind and solar radiation also played a substantial part in the
production methods of previous civilizations – wind as the power behind sailing
ships and wind mills and the warmth of solar radiation as the main factor in
growth of vegetation and food crops. They do not play such great roles in our
present-day civilization.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Two additional important differences
are: (a) in the quantity and type of </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">man-made pollutions</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #222222; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">: In
the previous civilizations, most pollutants were biodegradable. Wastes that
were not recycled were rare in the past. Today it is just the opposite. (b)
Today’s most dangerous man-made pollution, high rates of emission of greenhouse
gases into the atmosphere are going to change the global temperature for perhaps
a million years, making the Earth uninhabitable.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The cases of collapse studied by the
learned historians were singular and isolated, occurring in different times and
caused by different factors. There were of course factors that were common to
all these cultures and civilizations, e.g. steady </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">population growth </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #222222; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">throughout
history, development of class societies, greed of oppressive ruling classes
etc. They surely played some role in their history, but not necessarily the
decisive ones in their collapse. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Resilience, revival or replication </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #222222; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">was
possible because of continued existence of sufficient renewable resources and
of further possibilities of </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">migration </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #222222; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">to greener
pastures that were sparsely populated and/or where the local populations were
militarily not strong enough to resist aggression.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When, however, our present-day
civilization collapses, which is happening in front of our eyes (see e.g. the
article by </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Paul Kingsnorth<span style="color: #222222;"> posted by Sajai Jose on
29.10. on this list), it cannot be salvaged. It is already </span><span style="color: red;">overpopulated</span><span style="color: #222222;">, there are
no satisfactory possibilities of large-scale migration to greener pastures any
more, the nonrenewable resources so very essential for running its over-complex
economies will have been gone forever, and many parts of the Earth may finally
and irreversibly have become uninhabitable. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Let me finish this text with two
quotes from Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, whose disciple I regard myself to be:<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;">Georgescu-Roegan (1971/1981: 296) </span>calls the
supplies of nonrenewable energy sources and other minerals in low-entropy state
“the limited dowry of mankind’s existence on Earth”. A dowry is not only a
limited but also a one-off gift, Therefore, he comes to the logical conclusion:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="background: white; margin-bottom: 21.0pt; margin-left: 35.4pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">“Even with a constant <span style="color: #c00000;">population</span>
and a constant flow <span style="color: #c00000;">per capita</span> of mined
resources, mankind's dowry will ultimately be exhausted if the career of the
human species is not brought to an end earlier by other factors.” (ibid) <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="background: white; margin-bottom: 21.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #222222; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">On the fate of our present-day
civilization, he wrote in a </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">fit of pessimism, <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="background: white; margin-bottom: 21.0pt; margin-left: 35.4pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">"Will mankind listen to any program that
implies a constriction of its addiction to exosomatic comfort? Perhaps the
destiny of man is to have a short, but fiery, exciting and extravagant life
rather than a long, uneventful and vegetative existence. Let other species, –
the amoebas, for example – which have no spiritual ambitions, inherit an Earth
still bathed in plenty of sunshine." (Georgescu-Roegen <span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;">1972/1976</span>: 35)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="background: white; margin-bottom: 21.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #222222; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I do not quite agree with NGR. I do not think
the human species would disappear from this Earth altogether. We are far too
intelligent for that, far too ingenious. Our descendants would survive, in somewhat
still inhabitable pockets left behind after the collapse, but in much smaller
numbers. They would however live in a different civilization and with different
cultures.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="background: white; margin-bottom: 21.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">References:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="background: white; margin-bottom: 21.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #222222; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Edwards, Paul. ed. (1967) <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Encyclopedia of Philosophy</i>, 1967. New
York].<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="background: white; margin-bottom: 21.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #222222; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas (1971/1981)
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Entropy Law and the Economic Process</i>,
Harvard University Press. Cambridge MA (US).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="background: white; margin-bottom: 21.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas <span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;">(1972/1976</span><span style="color: red;">) </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Energy and
Economic Myths</i>. New York: Pergamon Press<span style="color: red;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>Saral Sarkarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14801618107395376433noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4729735685376119377.post-26225184482434846762021-07-28T12:41:00.001-07:002021-07-28T12:41:47.711-07:00Once More on Resources and Population – 2021 <p> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 14pt;">I recently had occasion and
need to write again on the above subject – in a google-group mailing list
called </span><i style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 14pt;">Radical Ecological Democracy. </i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 14pt;">I
am reproducing the correspondence. The context should be easily clear.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 14pt;">24.06.2021</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE;">It seems to me that every
generation of thinking young people feel compelled to rediscover simple truths,
actually truisms, and invent the wheel again and again.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That about 90 percent of all
resources used by our present-day economies do not grow like trees or fall from
the sky like sunshine, and hence must be mined are commonplace knowledge. Even
the bronze-age people knew that for making bronze they had to dig the raw
materials out of the earth.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That such materials are nonrenewable
and hence exhaustible have also become well-known since at least 1972, when the
book <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Limits to Growth </i>was published.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The idea and the knowledge of limits
to availability of such resources are known ever since Malthus formulated in
the late 18<sup>th</sup> century his famous population theory.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That our whole industrial way of
living inevitably pollutes the environment can be seen even by laypersons with
their own eyes, and that since the beginning of the industrial revolution three
hundred years ago.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yet, few drew the necessary conclusions
from this knowledge. One big exception was our own Gandhiji, whom I consider to
have been the first <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Green </i>thinker-leader
of modern times. Some hundred years ago, he wrote the following:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 35.45pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE;">“The economic imperialism of a single tiny island kingdom [the UK] is today
keeping the world in chains. If an entire nation <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">of 300 million </i>took to similar economic exploitation, it would
strip the world bare like locusts.” <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 35.45pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When Gandhiji wrote this (1928), <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">India</i> meant the whole British India that
included today’s Pakistan and Bangladesh. The population of this huge
subcontinent has since then swollen from the then 300 million to today’s
ca.1700 million. Yet, not many, not even the NGOs and the environmental
activists of the world are daring to talk about this problem. Politicians and
famous economists of the world, also those of India, are still blabbering about
economic growth, in best cases, about sustainable growth, green growth, Green
New Deal, renewable energy, electric cars etc.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thankfully, here and there, a few
soft voices of reason can be heard. Phrases like “physical limits to economic
growth”, “community of monks living on a mountain top” or “a resource efficient
population” (Tom Abeles) could be heard in the RED list. But still nobody dares
talk about the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">number of humans </i>that
can sustainably live on the earth. In Europe, some two years ago, a group of
top economists asked in a petition the EU-leaders to follow an economic policy
of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">de-growth</i>. But even they had no
idea of how today’s 8 billion human population growing to 10 billion by 2050
would be able to live sustainably. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the meantime, we are getting
reports of famine from Madagaskar, Yemen and Tigray, in the year 2021. That
reminds me of Malthus. But we do hear a lot about biodiversity loss and X’tinction
rebellion. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE;">With greetings from <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE;">Saral Sarkar<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">On Sun, 27 Jun 2021, 12:14 Ashish Kothari, <<a href="mailto:ashishkothari@riseup.net">ashishkothari@riseup.net</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Saralji,
as you do raise this issue several times, how about if you told us what you
think is a human population that can be sustainable, and under what conditions.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">ashish <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 14pt;">27.06. – 2.7.2021</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">Dear Ashish, Mari Marcel, Britt, Ratheesh and all who
have read my intervention of 24/25.6.2021</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">I am glad to note that you have reacted to my persistent
efforts to direct your attention to the huge problem of overpopulation that
mankind has been facing since long. I have been publishing my thoughts on this
and related problems since 1983, on the population problem since 1993 – not as
an academic, but as an eco-socialist activist. At the end of this contribution
I will give some references and links to my relevant publications. Here I want
to respond only </span><span style="color: red; font-size: 14pt;">briefly</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> to your reactions.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I know why
many people are afraid of broaching the issue of population. It is often
precarious to speak of the population problem as a problem of too many humans.
You might be scolded as a <span style="color: red;">“fascist</span>” or “<span style="color: red;">racist”</span> or “<span style="color: red;">misogynic man</span>”.
I have suffered such scolding a few times. A famous Bangladeshi eco-feminist
family friend of ours reproaches (or used to reproach) all who say (said) that
Bangladesh is/was overpopulated for allegedly wanting to “depopulate
Bangladesh”.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="color: red; font-size: 14pt;">(1) My case for Population Control</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">(a) Most of us humans want to defend </span><b style="font-size: 14pt;"><i><span style="color: red;">biodiversity.</span></i></b><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> And we are worried about the
ongoing </span><b style="font-size: 14pt;"><i>sixth extinction</i>. </b><span style="font-size: 14pt;">Yet we are afraid of mentioning the main
cause of biodiversity loss: our own omissions and commissions. It is taking
place not only because of us inexorably pursuing our own economic interests,
but also because of </span><span style="color: red; font-size: 14pt;">our growing numbers </span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">with our
ever-growing “</span><span style="color: red; font-size: 14pt;">basic needs</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">” and “</span><span style="color: red; font-size: 14pt;">pleasures</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">”. Both factors are constantly goading us
into expanding our economic zones and our habitats into </span><span style="color: red; font-size: 14pt;">territories of other species</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">. Soon there would be “no room for wild
animals”. It is a fundamental principle/law of ecology that in any habitat, if
one of the species living there grows too much, that is neither good for that
particular species nor for the web of life there.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Some
old-style socialists routinely say, it is <span style="color: red;">capitalism</span>
and the capitalists that have to be blamed for all the environmental ills, not <span style="color: red;">the “people”. </span>That is too cheap. The <span style="color: red;">poor peasants </span>who are <span style="color: red;">encroaching
into the habitats </span>of wild animals in <span style="color: red;">Africa </span>are
not capitalists. The fishermen and peasants who are occupying the <span style="color: red;">Sunderbans</span> in Southern Bengal too are not capitalists.
But the elephants of Africa and the tigers of the Sunderbans regularly attack
the encroaching humans and destroy their crops and homes. They, in turn, are
also getting decimated.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Imagine an
ideal old-style <span style="color: red;">socialist society </span>(not the
defective Soviet model of the past). Would it do anything differently, if its
human population and its “<span style="color: red;">needs” and “aspirations</span>”
would be growing? And who are enjoying the fruits of continuous
industrialization, only the capitalists? And not also the average people? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(b)
Population growth is also the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">basic </i>cause
of many small-scale <span style="color: red;">wars and conflicts </span>between <span style="color: red;">small states, tribes, </span>and <span style="color: red;">ethnic
groups</span>. In the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">ultimate</i> <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">analysis</i>, the genocidal massacre of <span style="color: red;">Tutsis by Hutus </span>that took place in Rwanda in 1994 was
caused by shortage of fertile land and jobs for a growing population. Since, in
the Sahel zone of Africa, the amount of fertile land is limited, regular
battles (with massacres) between groups of herders and peasants take place
there. The whole world is afraid that soon a war might break out between
Ethiopia on the one side and Egypt and the Sudan on the other, the bone of
contention will then be the waters of the river Nile. The populations of the
three countries have been growing in the last ten years at the rate of 2.6, 2
and 3 percent respectively. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the 1970s
– 1980s, in Maharashtra (India), the locals started an agitation for throwing
the <span style="color: red;">internal immigrants (</span>South Indians) back
from their state to South India because the latter were accused of occupying
all the white-collar <span style="color: red;">jobs</span>. Also in the 1990s, we
witnessed the <span style="color: red;">caste conflict</span> between upper caste
Indian Youth and the youth of the other backward castes (OBCs).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A similar
agitation has been taking place in Assam (Eastern India) since long – not only
against Bangladeshi <span style="color: red;">illegal immigrants, </span>but also
against immigrants from West Bengal. In the latter case, the immigrants are
mostly Hindus like the Assamese, their skin complexion is the same, i.e. brown,
their mother tongues are very similar. But they are <span style="color: red;">competitors
for the scarce jobs</span>, business opportunities and scarce agricultural
land.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
international media report only on <span style="color: red;">illegal migration </span>across
national borders – on Central Americans and Mexicans <span style="color: red;">get-crashing
into the USA, Africans and Muslims from the Middle East get-crashing into
Europe</span>. The conflicts caused by migration within a country generally go
unnoticed, but they are there in almost every country where the population is
growing. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Until about
fifty years ago, it was not difficult for the surplus population of a country
to emigrate to a relatively sparsely populated or industrially developed
country. Immigrants were even welcome in many countries. But today, the boat is
full. Immigrants are not welcome, they are being pushed back, walls are being
built at borders, x<span style="color: red;">enophobia</span> is growing, fascism
is spreading. If not for anything else, it is for the sake of <span style="color: red;">peace</span> within our own species that we should stop our
own population growth.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(c) I read
about the population theory of <span style="color: red;">Malthus</span> at
college at the age of 17. Our lecturer said, while rejecting the theory, that a
human is not born only with a belly, but also <span style="color: red;">with two
hands</span>. The implication was that a human also produces value (food etc.),
so that population growth was no problem. We however know that not all pairs of
hands find jobs or sufficient fertile land to produce value. There is <span style="color: red;">unemployment</span> in all countries. Moreover, not all young
people are satisfied with finding some job for some food and clothing only,
they want to have <span style="color: red;">good jobs for a good life</span>. But
good jobs are scarce in their own native land. So they get-crash into Europe
and North America. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In 2011, the
educated youth made uprisings in one Arab country after another (the <span style="color: red;">Arab Spring</span>). They also succeeded in many countries.
They overthrew Ben Ali, Mubarak, Gadhafi and Saleh. They had thought they would
henceforth enjoy a good prosperous life in freedom and democracy. But today
they acknowledge their failure. Today, in Tunisia, Egypt, Lebanon and Iraq,
they are again agitating, this time against more or less democratically elected
governments they have themselves brought to power. Apparently they knew nothing
about limits to growth. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="color: red; font-size: 14pt;">(2) Counterarguments</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">Wherever I spoke about overpopulation and the
necessity of population control, some listeners came up with some standard
counterarguments:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(a) The
growth rate of <span style="color: red;">world population is falling </span>and
by 2050 or 2100 or so it will stabilize at ten to eleven billion. So don’t
worry! That is true, and the prognosis for 2050 may also come true. But is that
any consolation? Today’s ca. 8 billion humans are irretrievably consuming so
many nonrenewable resources that even with zero growth of both, that will leave
nothing over for the children who are being born today – i.e. nothing but an
“uninhabitable Earth”<sup>*</sup> and a moonlike landscape full of huge mining
craters.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(b) Often it
is argued that enough food is being produced in the world, it <span style="color: red;">only needs to be distributed fairly</span>. True, if you take
the whole annual world food production and divide it by 8 billion, then you get
enough food per capita. But how much could be produced if the farmers desist
from using <span style="color: red;">chemical fertilizers and pesticides and
herbicides</span>? Don’t ecologists want to ban the use of such chemicals? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And is it
not utterly absurd, utterly starry-eyed to imagine that the farmers of
food-surplus countries – USA, Canada, Argentina, Australia etc. – would invest
their money and labor to produce a surplus only to gift it away to the hungry
poor of the world? They would gladly sell their surplus to whoever pays for it
But how can the hungry of today get <span style="color: red;">the money for </span>that?
Or they would sell their surplus grain to meat producers of rich countries.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The World
Food Program <span style="color: red;">(WFP) </span>buys a lot of the surplus for
feeding the hungry of the world, the money for which comes from the rich
states. So, in an indirect way, the surplus food does get distributed. But does
anybody feel comfortable with this undignified <span style="color: red;">beggar-like
status </span>of a part of humanity?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Moreover,
humans do <span style="color: red;">not</span> want to live <span style="color: red;">by bread alone</span>. It is never enough to have just
sufficient food. Every citizen of even poor countries needs also a roof above
his head, some decent clothing, basic medical care, basic security against
crime, schooling for his children, and an opportunity for <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">earning</i> his and his family’s livelihood (i.e. a job). A functioning
state should be able to provide these. Those that cannot are rightly called <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: red;">failed states.</span></i><span style="color: red;"> </span><span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;">Overpopulation
and high population growth rates are leading today to a growth of the number of
failed states.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(c)
Inevitably, some (e.g. Britt in RED list) come up with the argument that
citizens of the <span style="color: red;">rich</span> <span style="color: red;">North</span>
consume <span style="color: red;">80 percent </span>of the world’s resources,
while constituting only <span style="color: red;">20 percent </span>of the
world’s population. Ergo, it is they who are to be blamed for all the ills of
the planet, not the overpopulated countries of the <span style="color: red;">poor
South</span>. Ergo, it is they who must do something for overcoming the
planetary crises, and not speak about overpopulation in the Gobal South.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
statistic is, generally speaking, correct. But what is the use of <span style="color: red;">baying at the moon</span>? Old-style Imperialism is <span style="color: red;">history</span>. And what has already happened in history <span style="color: red;">cannot be unhappened</span>. We in the South must ourselves
save our own respective countries from ruin. It is not the task of the North.
And it is not in their interest that the number of low-wage laborers in the
Global South goes down.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(d)
Recently, some people are cursing population control and birth control
policies. They argue with the fact of <span style="color: red;">ageing
populations </span>in some rich countries and lack of sufficient number of <span style="color: red;">young people for the labor force.</span> They point at
China’s problems. “India on the other hand is lauded for its<span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;"> </span><span style="color: red;">enormous
young population which favors economic prosperity” </span><span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;">(Mari Marcel).</span> In India, some
people, e.g. former PM Manmohan Singh, have even been talking of “our
demographic dividend”. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is <span style="color: #c00000;">corporate speak</span>, the contemptuous way the
capitalists and the managerial class speak about human beings. They may think:
“<a href="https://www.dict.cc/englisch-deutsch/apr%C3%A8s.html"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">après</span></a></span><span lang="EN-US" style="background: #FFCC99; color: black; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><a href="https://www.dict.cc/englisch-deutsch/moi.html"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">moi,</span></a></span><span lang="EN-US" style="background: #FFCC99; color: black; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><a href="https://www.dict.cc/englisch-deutsch/le.html"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">le</span></a> <a href="https://www.dict.cc/englisch-deutsch/d%C3%A9luge.html"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">déluge</span></a> “(<span style="color: #c00000;">after us the deluge). </span><span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;">But w</span>e should not make it our own thought, despite
all good reasons for pessimism. This problem, no doubt, is there and it must
also be solved. But not by encouraging young couples to produce many children
and thus ruining the environment further.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="color: red; font-size: 14pt;">(3) Sustainable Population</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">Ashish requests me to tell “what I think is </span><span style="color: #c00000; font-size: 14pt;">a human population that can be sustainable</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">, and
under what conditions.” The answer to this question is, broadly speaking, easy
to give. Since, in principle, an economy based mainly on nonrenewable resources
is not sustainable, an economy that is to be sustainable must, in principle, be
mainly based on renewable resources. That can be easily imagined. The
pre-industrial economy of Europe (indeed, of all countries) was sustainable,
because it was mainly based on renewable resources: biomass, human and animal
muscle power, wind, sunshine and the power of flowing water as sources of
energy, and wood and some easily recyclable metals – like bronze, iron and
aluminum – as solid material. The </span><i style="font-size: 14pt;">optimum</i><span style="font-size: 14pt;">
population of that period was/is therefore the human population that can be
sustainable. Note that I am saying “optimum”, the actual population of that
period was more than optimal. That is why they had to migrate and conquer new
territories and decimate local populations. That was one reason why so many
wars were fought between kingdoms and empires. I guess, the actual world
population of that period was about I billion (There are some estimates in the
Wikipedia with curves of world population growth through the centuries)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="color: red; font-size: 14pt;">(4) What we can do. Realism</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">It is easy for </span><span style="color: #c00000; font-size: 14pt;">theorists</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">
to say, in principle it is so or basically it should be so. </span><span style="color: #c00000; font-size: 14pt;">Activists</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> must however try to achieve their
solutions in practical terms.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nothing can
be achieved overnight, activists must therefore work with a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">transition period</i> plan and the goals set
must be <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">realistic</i>. There is no use
writing down <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">dreams as goals</i>. Even
so, the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">ultimate</i> goal(s) can/should
be <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">idealistically</i> formulated,
whatever be one’s ideal, so that they can serve as the compass for a long
journey. Unity of purpose is necessary in any group, but in order to achieve
that unity, agreement on analysis of the given situation must also be achieved.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For today, I
am closing this article in this vein. If readers demand it, I can write more on
the subject answering their questions.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="color: #c00000; font-size: 14pt;">References:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">My basic theoretical positions can be found in my book:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE; mso-themecolor: text1;">Saral Sarkar: <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Eco-Socialism or
Eco-Capitalism? A critical Analysis of Humanity’s Fundamental Choices (Zed
Books, London. 1999, Orient Longmans, New Delhi, Hyderabad, 2001)<o:p></o:p></i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><sup><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE; mso-themecolor: text1;"><o:p> </o:p></span></sup><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">David Wallace Wells :</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 14pt;"> </span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">The Uninhabitable Earth</span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE; mso-themecolor: text1;"><o:p> </o:p></span>Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas: Technology Assessment. The
Case of the Direct Use of Solar Energy<a href="http://www.peakoilindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Georgescu-Roegen-The-Case-of-the-Direct-Use-of-Solar-Energy.pdf"><span lang="EN-US">http://www.peakoilindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Georgescu-Roegen-The-Case-of-the-Direct-Use-of-Solar-Energy.pdf</span></a></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span style="color: red;">Essays and articles on renewable energies</span><span style="color: red;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Saving the Planet, American Style -- A Critical Review, and Some Thoughts and
Ideas<br />
</span><a href="https://eco-socialist.blogspot.com/2016/10/saving-planet-american-style-critical_7.html"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">https://eco-socialist.blogspot.com/2016/10/saving-planet-american-style-critical_7.html</span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br />
<br />
Once More on the Viability of Renewable Energies<br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">https://eco</span><a href="https://eco-socialist.blogspot.com/2016/06/once-more-on-viability-of-renewable_11.html" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">-socialist.blogspot.com/2016/06/once-more-on-viability-of-renewable_11.html</a></p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Root Causes of the Cleavages in the Ecological Left<br />
</span><a href="https://eco-socialist.blogspot.com/2015/09/root-causes-of-cleavages-in-ecological.html"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">https://eco-socialist.blogspot.com/2015/09/root-causes-of-cleavages-in-ecological.html</span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br />
<br />
Krugman's Illusion: We Becoming Richer, But Not Damaging The Environment<br />
</span><a href="https://eco-socialist.blogspot.com/2014/04/krugmans-illusion-we-becoming-richer.html"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">https://eco-socialist.blogspot.com/2014/04/krugmans-illusion-we-becoming-richer.html</span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br />
<br />
Thunberg's Problem. A Problem Without A Solution?<br />
</span><a href="https://eco-socialist.blogspot.com/2019/03/thunbergs-problem-problem-without.html"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">https://eco-socialist.blogspot.com/2019/03/thunbergs-problem-problem-without.html</span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br />
<br />
The Global Crisis and Role of So-Called Renewable Energies in Solving It<br />
</span><a href="https://eco-socialist.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-global-crisis-and-role-of-so-called.html"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">https://eco-socialist.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-global-crisis-and-role-of-so-called.html</span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br />
<br />
There is No Such Thing as a Free Lunch, For Humans. -- Response to Some
Comments on My Essay in Insurge-Intelligence<br />
<span class="MsoHyperlink"><span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">https://eco-socialist.blogspot.com/2017/08/there-is-no-such-thing-as-free-lunch.html<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Essays and article on the overpopulation and unwelcome
migrants Problem</span></i></b></p>
<h3 style="background: white; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-weight: normal; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Polemics is Useless<br />
A Proposal For An Eco-socialist Synthesis In The Overpopulation Dispute<o:p></o:p></span></h3>
<h3 style="background: white; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><a href="http://eco-socialist.blogspot.de/2012/08/polemics-is-useless-proposal-for-eco.html">http://eco-socialist.blogspot.de/2012/08/polemics-is-useless-proposal-for-eco.html</a><o:p></o:p></span></h3>
<h3 style="background: white; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-weight: normal; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><o:p> </o:p></span></h3>
<h3 style="background: white; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-weight: normal; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Two Different Demographic Crises
-- Some Eco-Socialist Reflections</span></h3><h3 style="background: white; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">http://eco-socialist.blogspot.de/2013/11/two-different-demographic-crises-some.html</h3>
<h3 style="background: white; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-weight: normal; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><br /></span></h3><h3 style="background: white; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-weight: normal; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">India's Unwelcome Immigrants
Problem -- Identity Politics Beats Class Politics</span></h3><h3 style="background: white; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">https://eco-socialist.blogspot.com/2018/11/indias-unwelcome-immigrants-problem.html</h3>
<h3 style="background: white; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-weight: normal; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><br /></span></h3><h3 style="background: white; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-weight: normal; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">The Refugee-Migrant Crisis of the
EU -- Its Deeper Causes and Messages</span></h3><h3 style="background: white; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">http://eco-socialist.blogspot.de/2015/11/the-refugee-migrant-crisis-of-eu-its.html</h3>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-outline-level: 3;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 13.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-language: DE;">The Tragedy of Lampedusa -- What to do?</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-outline-level: 3;">http://eco-socialist.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-tragedy-of-lampedusa-what-to-do.html</p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="background: white; mso-outline-level: 3;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-language: DE;">For Saving the Earth
We Need to Tell the Whole Truth -- an eco-socialist's response to Richard Smith</span></p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="background: white; mso-outline-level: 3;">http://eco-socialist.blogspot.com/2017/12/for-saving-earth-we-need-to-tell-whole.html</p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="background: white; mso-outline-level: 3;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-language: DE;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span lang="EN-US" style="background-color: transparent; font-size: 13.5pt;">The Two Drivers of Ecological Collapse and the Two Tasks</span></p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="background: white; mso-outline-level: 3;"><span lang="EN-US" style="background-color: transparent;">http://eco-socialist.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-two-drivers-of-ecological-collapse.html</span></p>Saral Sarkarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14801618107395376433noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4729735685376119377.post-77289725923304224902019-10-01T12:44:00.000-07:002019-10-01T12:44:27.409-07:00Is Collapse of Our Civilization Unavoidable?<br />
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">The question put above should not surprise anybody who
is informed about the state of the world today. In the past, other
civilizations have collapsed or withered away. So our civilization too may not
be able to avoid that fate. Currently, this possibility is being associated
with global warming,<sup>1</sup> But even earlier, the end of the current
civilization was speculated on in association with the discovery of limits to
growth. With this essay, I am adding my two cents to the discussion. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While millions are worried, some,
called <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">the</i> <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">denialists</i>, do not accept that global warming is a man-made
problem. I need not here go into their arguments, I simply accept the
well-known view of the vast majority of climatologists that excessive emission
of green-house gases by humans is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">the</i>
explanation of this phenomenon. If so, it is the duty of us humans to repair
the damages and see to it that GHG emissions remain below the limit. Many
optimists believe, the problem can be solved. <br />
<br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The
Political-Economic Difficulties in Solving the Problem<br />
<br />
</i></b>But I have strong doubts. Our prevailing political-economic system,
that today seems to be unalterable, is the big obstacle to solving the problem.
The optimists say, we only need to have the will to do the necessary things.
But that is only <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">theory</i>. The million
Dollar question is: will humanity be able to develop the strong will to take
the difficult and complex measures necessary for stopping warming in the given narrow
timeframe, i.e. by 2030? We must delve a little deeper in the matter, in order
to judge whether that, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">in reality</i>,
would also be possible.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Francis Fukuyama’s “end of history”
thesis,<sup>2 </sup>postulated in 1989 before the fall of the Berlin wall, was
largely (though not fully) borne out by the developments that took place in the
years immediately thereafter – viz. the systemic transformation that took place
in the Soviet Union and the Eastern European communist states. If it proves to
be an enduring truth, then we have to reckon with a long life for the
political-economic <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">system of liberal
democracy plus free-market capitalism</i> and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Western lifestyle</i>. Apparently, at present at least, this system has
no rival as an ideal. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This system has two parts: (1) It
requires that, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">generally speaking</i>,
the incumbent rulers, an elected president or prime minister, and her party,
which has a majority in the parliament, seek endorsement of the majority of the
voters for another period of 4 or 5 years in office. Now <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">human nature</i> being what it is,<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">
politicians</i> crave for (more) power (Fukuyama says: recognition) and power
holders try to remain in power. (2) The majority of the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">voters</i>, the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">ordinary people</i>,
on their part, crave for more prosperity, more comfort, and more enjoyment in
life through consumption of more and more goods and services. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The former can attain their objective
by serving or <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">promising to</i> serve the
immediate material interests of the majority of the voters – for instance, by
promising to create more and better jobs, lower taxes, raise wages and welfare
benefits, increase security etc. All that requires high rates of economic
growth, for which borrowing money is made easier and cheaper for both private
and public sectors. As a result, generally speaking, all economies of the world
are today sitting on mountains of debt.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These two fundamental aspects of
human nature have been two of the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">main
drivers of human history</i>. They have given rise to capitalism and
industrialism, from which we today cannot escape. They contributed strongly to
continuous material and technological “progress”, but also caused much misery
and destruction (at least ever since we left the putative state of primitive
communism behind). Of course, throughout history, there have been exceptional
humans who rejected these motives and followed lofty ones for their actions
(Gandhi, Saint Francis of Assisi, Buddha e.g.). But they have been few and far
between. These cravings have driven kings and emperors, but also other kinds of
rulers, to conquer or dominate over more and more territories and peoples,
which was their way of satisfying their own lust for power and the hunger of
their own subjects for (more) prosperity. Neither the citizens’ democracies of
the ancient Greek city states, nor the ancient Roman republic of the assembly
of aristocrats (the Senate) has been much of an exception. In more recent
times, neither the revolutionary democratic French republic founded with lofty
ideals in 1779 nor the United States of America founded after a liberation
struggle in 1776, with its ideal democratic constitution, could resist the
temptation of conquering other countries and dominating over other peoples. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Throughout history, these two drivers
got ever more force from the continuous <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">growth
in human population</i>, which caused a continuous growth in the volume of
demand for goods and services that satisfy the consumption desires of people. A
growing human population also enabled entrepreneurs to hire (or buy on the
slave market) more and more cheap laborers (slaves) and rulers to recruit (or
conscript) ever more soldiers for their wars. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In our present context, the most
problematic aspect of this system is that it has developed a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">growth dynamic</i> that cannot be stopped,
let alone reversed, anymore for any length of time without risking a serious political
and economic crisis. But without reversing it, we cannot also stop our march
along the slippery slope to an ecological collapse. The situation has been
summarized in the well-known equation:<br />
<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I = P x A x T<br />
<br />
(Where I stands for total ecological <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Impact</i>,
of which climate change is only a major part, P for <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">population, </i>A for <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">affluence</i>,
and T for<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> technology</i>). That means the
more the population grows, the more affluence we achieve, and the more we use
sophisticated technologies, the more we impact adversely on our environment.<br />
<br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The
Gloomy Perspective<br />
<br />
</i></b>Against this background, is there any reason to be optimistic? The <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">phylogenetic (i.e. innate) behavior patterns
of us humans</i> were formed (as those of all animals) by the processes of our
biological evolution, the most important of which have been struggle for
survival and survival of the fittest. There is not much room there for
altruism. Yet, we are now being called upon to (decide to) do things that
totally go against the grain of this genetic inheritance: As individuals, we
should not act only in our own individual interest, not even only in the
interest of our identity group (nation, tribe, ethnic group), but also and
primarily in the interest of the whole humanity, and the rest of nature (other
animal and plant species) to boot. And we should not even act only in the interest
of the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">currently living</i> generations
of humanity, but also in the interest of the future generations thereof. Our <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">politicians</i> should not strive for power,
but only desire to serve the people and the future generations. Our economic
policies should no longer be oriented toward continuous economic growth, but,
on the contrary, toward a contracting (degrowing) economy. We should no longer
seek joie de vivre in more consumption of luxury goods and services, but in
sacrificing standard of living we are used to. We should e.g. drastically
reduce air travel and use, instead of cars, bicycles and boats for travel. In
sum, we should drastically reduce use of scarce resources, especially of fossil
fuels, the very basis of affluence in our current civilization. Is all that <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">humanly</i> possible at all? Ernst Ulrich
von Weizsäcker, a famous German author on the subject, wrote in 1989: “To tell
Europeans, Americans, and Japanese that they should wear sackcloth and ashes
and forgo prosperity, is a strategy condemned to failure.”<sup>2a<br />
</sup><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If at all possible, it will, in
any circumstance, be extremely difficult. Firstly, climate change is a global
phenomenon. Though mainly caused by the industrial societies, in the recent
decades, all countries have been contributing to it, more or less.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is a typical “tragedy of the commons”
situation,<sup>3</sup> the commons being here the global atmosphere. We know
how difficult it was to achieve the Paris Accord on climate change (2015).
India, e.g., resisted accepting any cut in its CO<sub>2</sub> emission and had
to be pressured by other powers to do so. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Secondly, no underdeveloped country
is prepared to give up its ambition of catching up with the USA with regard to
affluence. The accord finally signed was therefore very weak, some even called
it a fraud.<sup>4 </sup>Even this weak accord has in the meantime been
repudiated by the USA. Actually, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">global</i>
CO<sub>2</sub> emission is still rising. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The essential problem is that one
cannot kill the goose that is laying the golden eggs. Fossil fuels are the very
basic resource (the goose), the foundation on which the present-day <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">industrial civilization</i> has been built
and continues to run. If you drastically reduce their use, your economy will
most certainly take a nosedive. That has been well understood all over the
world by both the majority of the voters and their leaders. The strong desire
to continue to get the golden eggs remains unabated. That is why nothing
serious is being done, can be done, to mitigate global warming. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is of course a minority of
voters in almost every industrial country, the naïve environmentalists, who
believe it is possible to run a highly industrialized economy/society without
using any fossil fuels, and without substantially sacrificing prosperity. They
are demanding since long that their governments embark on a quick 100%
transition from fossil fuels to so-called renewable energies. But governments
of the world are not doing anything more than giving some token support to the “renewable”
power industry. Fact is, in the main, they are continuing to rely for the bulk
of the energy needs of their country on the conventional sources, viz. fossil
fuels, nuclear power, and hydroelectricity. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Elsewhere,<sup>5</sup> I have
explained in detail why this dream of the naïve environmentalists appears to me,
at least till now, to be unrealizable. In short, renewable energies are
feasible but, energetically and economically, not viable – because the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">net energy</i> that we can get from them
(their EROEI) at the best sites is very low and at less than optimum sites
often negative.<br />
<br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Summing
up<br />
<br />
</i></b>Already since the mid1970s, it is clear to discerning people that there
are <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">limits to economic growth</i>.
Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen called the one-off availability of stocks of
non-renewable energy sources and other minerals in low-entropy state “the
limited dowry of mankind’s existence on earth”. He concluded in 1971: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 35.4pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">“Even with a constant
population and a constant flow per capita of mined resources, mankind's dowry
will ultimately be exhausted if the career of the human species is not brought
to an end earlier by other factors.”<sup>6</sup><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">But politicians and experts, like ostriches, refused
to heed their warnings, even pushed back with caviling. Frustrated,
Georgescu-Roegen wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 35.4pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">"Will mankind
listen to any program that implies a constriction of its addiction to
exosomatic comfort? Perhaps the destiny of man is to have a short, but fiery,
exciting and extravagant life rather than a long, uneventful and vegetative
existence. Let other species – the amoebas, for example, – which have no
spiritual ambitions, inherit an earth still bathed in plenty of sunshine."<sup>7</sup><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span> This
pessimistic but realistic perspective of the 1970s was mainly based on the
realization of the limitedness and exhaustibility of non-renewable resources,
especially of energy resources. However, for the time being, the danger of
sky-rocketing crude oil prices as a result of “peak oil” has been averted
through the development of “fracking” technology that opened up shale oil
deposits for exploitation. But even that would not save this civilization from
the growing resource problems. Today, however, the greatest danger is coming
from global warming. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We can describe the situation today
as a “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">pincer-grip crisis</i>”. On the one
hand, the resource scarcity is increasingly making itself felt while the world
population is continuously growing. On the other hand, if and to the extent
that we succeed in solving the resource scarcity problem and thus make
continuous economic and population growth possible, we would be heating up the
atmosphere and pollute the environment. There is no solution to this crisis <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">within the current model of civilization</i>.<br />
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Is there Any Hope? Can Something Still
Be Done? <br />
<br />
</b></i>In the light of the analysis presented above, it seems that end of
history in Fukuyama’s optimistic sense – worldwide proliferation of a quasi-steady-state
liberal-democratic capitalism – will not materialize. What we are observing
today is rather the impending end of history in the sense of collapse of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">our present civilization</i> followed by
centuries of chaos, wars, and destruction. But that does not mean that humans
as a species would soon become extinct, as the movement Extinction Rebellion
seems to suggest. Our present one is not the only possible civilization. No,
humans are a tough and intelligent species. In its history, this species has
survived some earlier climate changes. And, as for civilization, there have
been several ever since humans transitioned from a nomadic hunter-gatherer way
of life to a sedentary agricultural one. So, in the future too, after the
collapse of the present one, a different civilization could be possible, which,
hopefully, could be made more peaceful, more ecological and more social.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Denialists, but also many who accept
the view that climate change is man-made, see only one way of positively
reacting to the unavoidable change, viz. progressive adaptation to the new
situation: e.g. by withdrawing from the coastal plains and newly desertifying
areas and resettling in still habitable areas. That would not be easy, also
because resistance to foreigners/outsiders encroaching on one’s own <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">territory </i>is a strong element of human
nature. Currently, we are witnessing this in the USA and Europe, but also in
Assam (a province in India). <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Human nature would most certainly be
a big obstacle to creating a new civilization. But there may still be some
hope. Iräneus Eibl-Eibesfeldt, the great German human-ethologist wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 35.4pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">“We are not fully
predetermined by our instincts. We are capable of controlling our nature
through culture. … What is decisive is that we are the first creatures that <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">can set goals for themselves</i>, and thus
give our life a meaning. By doing this, we, of course, do not free ourselves
from [our] nature, but we actively enter into new situations, in which new
conditions of [evolutionary-biological] selection act upon us.”<sub> </sub><sup>8<o:p></o:p></sup></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">But Frans de Waal, famous primatologist and
human-ethologist, claims that we do not have to wait for new conditions of
selection to arise that would affect our behavior pattern and make it
appropriate for a better and just society. Counter to the assumption that animals
(so also humans)<sup>9</sup> are inherently selfish, he has on several
occasions observed in several animals of different species facets of altruism,
viz. cooperativeness, empathy, helpfulness etc. He believes, contrary to the
narrow understanding of Darwin’s theory of evolution, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">also</i></b> these traits of
behavior are <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">innate</i> in many mammalian
species including humans, part of their phylogenetic inheritance. They have
always been among the conditions of survival of these species. We can then also
conclude that the phylogenetic foundations for an ecological and better, i.e.
more humane, civilization already exist. We only have to <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">set these goals</i> for ourselves.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For reasons described above, just
setting these goals may be, in practical-political terms, very difficult. But,
at least on paper, a part of them has already been set, long ago – e.g. in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the UN (1948) and in various
constitutions of individual states. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This part has also been realized to
some extent in some countries, as evidenced e.g. by the compassionate or
tolerating reception of political and war refugees as well as illegal migrants
in some European countries such as Germany, Sweden etc. Such receptions have
also been observed in poorer countries such as Turkey, Lebanon, Kenya, Tanzania
etc. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But these examples also reveal the
limit to such compassionate tolerance. As soon as the number of refugees and
migrants swelled to a million and above, the host native peoples of the EU
started fearing they “might lose their homeland”. Xenophobic views and slogans
like “Germany for Germans, foreigners get out” started being expressed, and
fascistic and right-extremist groups got new impetus. There is no doubt, there
does exist a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">social-critical limit</i> to
tolerance toward foreigners.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What can we conclude from all these
facts for today’s honest policy-makers and eco-political activists? Of course,
we must not give up our ultimate cause of building an ecological and social-human
society, But, as Paul Ehrlich once wrote addressing leftist activists, ”whatever
be your cause, it is a lost cause unless we control population [growth].” I
fully agree. To make people control their greed and consumption desires is very
difficult. It is much easier to make them accept population control. <br />
<br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">References<br />
<br />
</i></b>1. For the most detailed account, see:<br />
Wallace-Wells, David:<br />
<em>The Uninhabitable Earth</em><br />
</span><a href="https://www.ecologise.in/2017/07/15/viral-essay-uninhabitable-earth/"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">http://www.ecologise.in/2017/07/15/viral-essay-uninhabitable-earth/</span></a><span class="MsoHyperlink"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"><br />
</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"><br />
2. Fukuyama, Francis (1992) <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">End of
History and the Last Man</i>. New Delhi etc.: Penguin.<br />
<br />
</span><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-themecolor: text1;">2a. Weizsäcker, Ernst Ulrich von (1989: 14) <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Erdpolitik</i>. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft.<br />
<br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">3. Hardin, Garrett
(1968) “The Tragedy of the Commons”<br />
</span><a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/162/3859/1243"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">http://science.sciencemag.org/content/162/3859/1243</span></a><span class="MsoHyperlink"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"><br />
<br />
</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">4. See my article “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">An Historic Event or a Fraud? – Critical
Thoughts on the Paris Climate Accord”.<br />
</i></span><a href="https://eco-socialist.blogspot.com/search?q=Paris+Climate"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">https://eco-socialist.blogspot.com/search?q=Paris+Climate</span></a><span class="MsoHyperlink"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"><br />
<br />
</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">5. See my article “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Global Crisis and Role of So-called
Renewable Energies in Solving It,”<br />
</i></span><a href="https://eco-socialist.blogspot.com/search?q=Global+Crisis"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">https://eco-socialist.blogspot.com/search?q=Global+Crisis</span></a><span class="MsoHyperlink"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"><br />
</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">See also chapter 4 of
my book:<br />
<br />
Sarkar, Saral (1999) <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Eco-Socialism or
Eco-Capitalism?</i> London: Zed Books.<br />
<br />
6. Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas (1971/1981: P. 296) <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Entropy Law and the Economic Process</i>. Cambridge (USA), London:
Harvard University Press. <br />
<br />
7. Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas (1972/1976: P.35.) <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Energy and Economic Myths</i>. New York: Pergamon Press. <br />
<br />
</span><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-themecolor: text1;">8. Eibl-Eibesfeld, Irenäus (1990: P. 81) "Glaube
als Offenbarungswissen und Zuversicht", in Deschner (note 8a)<br />
<br />
8a. Deschner, Karlheinz (ed.) (1990) <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Woran
ich glaube</i>, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn.<br />
<br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">9. de Waal, Frans
(1996) <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Good Natured</i>. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and
Other Animals</i>. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.<br />
See also his book<br />
<br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: DE; mso-font-kerning: 18.0pt; mso-themecolor: text1;">de Waal, Frans (2010) <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Age of Empathy: Nature's Lessons for a Kinder Society</i>. New
York: Three Rivers Press.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />Saral Sarkarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14801618107395376433noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4729735685376119377.post-30087084335494223572019-10-01T03:15:00.000-07:002019-10-01T03:15:20.797-07:00Fascism's Recent Resurgence<br />
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE;">I recently read an excellent essay on fascism in general and, in particular,
on the recent resurgence of fascistic forces in some countries. In it, the
author Luis Gonzalez Reyes describes eight factors that caused or, at least,
favored fascism’s <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>resurgence. I largely
agree with the analysis, but am unhappy about some omissions. I also have some
criticism of his answer to the question as to <span style="color: red;">what now needs
to be or can be done</span>. Here is the link to the essay:<br />
<br />
</span><a href="https://www.15-15-15.org/webzine/2019/07/18/fascism-is-back-to-stay/"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">https://www.15-15-15.org/webzine/2019/07/18/fascism-is-back-to-stay/</span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br />
<br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I request the readers to first read the
essay of Reyes and then my critique.<br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "inherit",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"><br />
<br />
26.09.2019<br />
<br />
Dear </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #444444; font-family: "inherit",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Luis
Reyes,<br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "inherit",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"><br />
I read your essay “Fascism is Back to Stay” with great interest, not only
because I want to understand the phenomenon, but also because I (a dark-brown
Indian migrant in Germany, 83+ years old) am personally affected. As you surely
know, since 2016, there is a steep rise of xenophobic/fascist forces in
Germany, France, Holland etc.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I appreciate your analysis of the
post-WWII situation in Europe. I largely agree with it. I agree that our
situation today is one of impending </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-family: "inherit",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">collapse,</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "inherit",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"> But I am unhappy about the contents of the final
section (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Some Ideas for Standing up to
Fascism</i>). So pleaseFascism's allow me to make some constructive critical comments:<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(1) You have too much focused on
Europe only. You have failed to see (or to mention) that collapse has already
started (is taking place) at </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-family: "inherit",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">the
periphery of Europe</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "inherit",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">. How else can you
describe the situation in Somalia, Nigeria, DR of Congo, Central African
Republic etc.?<br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Europe is intimately connected with Africa,
not only through colonial history, but also culturally (Christianity and
language). A part of Spain even lies in Africa, and a large minority of whites
(25%?) still lives in South Africa. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">It is therefore no surprise
that the results of the collapse in Africa is spilling over into Europe in the
form of a large and steady stream of illegal migrants and refugees. In the case
of the Spanish exclaves and in the case of Greece, one can also speak of a
full-blown storming of the gates of prosperity.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Because in the meantime Europe too
has lost (and is increasingly losing) its economic capacity to offer a
satisfactory perspective to its own youth and to a large section of its own
proletariat, the people, that once welcomed also non-European, non-Christian
foreign workers with open arms, are increasingly becoming xenophobic. The
xenophobic section of the population is still a minority. But who knows, it may
soon become the majority.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This development is not limited to
Europe and Africa. Similar (though not in all respects identical) developments
are taking (has taken) place between the UK and Eastern Europe (especially
Christian and White Poland), India and Bangladesh, Bangladesh and Myanmar,
Pakistan and Afghanistan, the USA and Central and South America. And since recently
we are even observing a similar development between the relatively developed
South African Republic and its northern neighbors (all blacks). <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Most, though not all, of these
migrants are not refugees, but simply unwelcome migrants who are <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: red;">in search of a
better life</span></i><span style="color: red;"> </span>in a country where they
hope to find one.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(2) One factor, a very important one,
that you have not considered in your essay is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: red;">overpopulation and/or continued population
growth</span></i><span style="color: red;"> – </span>combined with poverty and/or
violence in everyday life – in the countries from where the illegal migrants
and refugees are coming (or are being forced to leave). It is a common feature
of these countries.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(3) What is also missing in your
essay is an <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: red;">actionable</span></i>
idea to stand up to the danger, actionable <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">today</i>.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the said section, one can find
many vague and idealistic concepts and expressions relating to a future ideal society
and the movement to create such a society: “human <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">liberation</i>”, “encourage <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">autonomy</i>”,
<span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;">“allow the population to satisfy
their <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">needs</i>”, “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">emancipated</i> societies”, “</span>Promoting a widespread <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;">empathy”</span></i><span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;"> etc.
In Germany, I have taken part in dozens of conversations of activists, in which
such expressions were thrown around. I was never sure that all understood the
same thing under such expressions. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Be that as it may, even if a person
understands them or gets them explained by an activist, they actually are only
relevant for the distant future. In our times, when we are facing the danger of
ecological and societal collapse, there are more important <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">concrete</i> things waiting to be done, </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: #c00000;">today</span></i><span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;">. In one word, it is to ensure bare survival. We have to
accept that it is<span style="background: white; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">
impossible to fulfill the continuously growing "needs", demands,
wishes, aspirations and ambitions of a continuously growing world population
while our resource base is continuously dwindling and
the ability of nature to absorb man-made pollution is continuously
diminishing.</span> <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Limiting myself to the subject of your
essay, i.e. renewed rise of fascism in Europe, I would like to suggest the
following: <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I think among all the factors you
have mentioned, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">currently</i>, “fear of
the other” is the weightiest. Fascistic, xenophobic right radicals are afraid
they are “losing their country”, that “Germany will soon cease to be the home
of the Germans”, or “a great change (transfer) of population” is taking place
in white and Christian Europe, that Europe will soon become Muslim <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Eurabia</i> etc. I am sure you too have
heard/read about this discourse. This fear comes from the deepest layer of our
biological, i.e. genetic, makeup.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You suggest we should all promote “a
widespread empathy with people nearby and far afield, and with all other living
creatures”. It is a crucial sentence in your essay. The phrase “with people
nearby and far afield” would mean: people in Spain, and people from Morocco
across the whole North and West Africa to Bangladesh. It is this empathy that
prompted Angela Merkel to open the gates of Germany to one million refugees and
illegal immigrants. This event also showed the limits to the human capacity to
feel empathy for the others. And it is this event that marks the beginning of
the recent rise of the until then dormant fascism in Germany (Europe?). <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Also the phrase “empathy with … all
other living creatures” is fraught with significance. You have heard of the
ongoing sixth extinction, you know that currently hundreds, if not thousands,
of species are becoming extinct every year, that the number of insects
(including bees) and plant species as well as of large animals is rapidly
dwindling. The main cause of this ongoing extinction is the </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: #c00000;">growth of both
the number of humans</span></i><span style="color: #c00000;"> </span><span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;">living on this planet and of their
economic activities.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the light of this development, I
would like to suggest that the most important thing to do </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: #c00000;">today</span></i><span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;"> is to stop both kinds of growth, that
of our own numbers and that of our economies. Addressing people like us –
leftist and ecological activists – Prof. Paul Ehrlich once wrote, </span><span style="color: #c00000;">”<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Whatever [be] your
cause, it is a lost cause unless we control population [growth]”.</i> </span><span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;">I share this exhortation. Controlling
economic growth is at present too big a task for groups of people like us. But
we can start a campaign for controlling the numbers of our own species in the
known problem countries (of e.g. Africa). That is </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: #c00000;">at present</span></i><span style="color: #c00000;"> </span><span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;">the
most important</span><span style="color: #c00000;"> <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">actionable</i></span><span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;">
idea that we have been neglecting since long, because most of us have been too
afraid to articulate them. But we can start the campaign now.<br />
</span><br />
------------------------<br />
<br />
NB. I have elaborated these views and ideas in some of my blog articles. See<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><a href="http://eco-socialist.blogspot.de/search?q=Polemics">http://eco-socialist.blogspot.de/search?q=Polemics</a><span style="color: black;"><br />
</span><a href="http://eco-socialist.blogspot.de/2013/11/two-different-demographic-crises-some.html">http://eco-socialist.blogspot.de/2013/11/two-different-demographic-crises-some.html</a><span style="color: black;"><br />
</span><a href="http://eco-socialist.blogspot.de/search?q=Lampedusa">http://eco-socialist.blogspot.de/search?q=Lampedusa</a><span style="color: black;"><br />
</span><a href="http://eco-socialist.blogspot.de/2015/11/the-refugee-migrant-crisis-of-eu-its.html">http://eco-socialist.blogspot.de/2015/11/the-refugee-migrant-crisis-of-eu-its.html</a><span class="MsoHyperlink"><span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">
</span></span><a href="http://eco-socialist.blogspot.com/2017/12/for-saving-earth-we-need-to-tell-whole.html">http://eco-socialist.blogspot.com/2017/12/for-saving-earth-we-need-to-tell-whole.html</a><span class="MsoHyperlink"><span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><br />
</span></span><a href="http://eco-socialist.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-two-drivers-of-ecological-collapse.html">http://eco-socialist.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-two-drivers-of-ecological-collapse.html</a><span class="MsoHyperlink"><span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><br />
</span></span><a href="https://eco-socialist.blogspot.com/search?q=whole+truth">https://eco-socialist.blogspot.com/search?q=whole+truth</a><span class="MsoHyperlink"><span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><br />
</span></span><a href="https://eco-socialist.blogspot.com/2018/11/indias-unwelcome-immigrants-problem.html">https://eco-socialist.blogspot.com/2018/11/indias-unwelcome-immigrants-problem.html</a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />Saral Sarkarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14801618107395376433noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4729735685376119377.post-47472889943518398172019-03-27T02:10:00.000-07:002019-03-27T02:13:35.905-07:00Thunberg's Problem. A Problem Without A Solution?<br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">For the last
two or three months, I have been following the news on the school strike
movement of teenagers, the purpose of which is to urge the grown-ups,
particularly the politicians, to immediately do what is necessary to solve the
problem of global warming, which is resulting in what has been summarized in
the term “climate crisis”. As Greta Thunberg formulated it, they want the
politicians to “panic”. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For her initiative, courage and
leadership role in the movement, the 16 years old Thunberg has been variously
criticized and maligned by several grown-ups including politicians.<sup>1 </sup>She
was thus compelled to publish an article in self-defense. I request my readers
to read it in the original.<sup>2</sup> <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I was almost moved to tears while reading it.
I remembered the time I was 15–18 years old. It was in the 1950s, when the
state of the Indian society and of the Third World in general was utterly miserable.
It was so not only in the material sense, i.e. in the sense of abject poverty, feudal
and imperialistic exploitation and oppression, but also in regard to the level
of education and political awareness of the people at large. And then, for the
few politically aware people like us, there was the threat of a third world war
with deployment of nuclear weapons. But we were in those days not as despairing
as Thunberg and her age-mates sound these days, although a third world war
followed by a nuclear winter with its consequences threatened to devastate the
whole world with one big bang. As against that, the climate crisis and its
already palpable negative effects are expected to worsen only incrementally.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We were less despairing because in
those days I and all my politicized age-mates believed we knew the solution: a socialist
world society. And we were somewhat confident that the mighty Soviet Union and
the global peace movement would be able to prevent a third world war. Today’s
youth do not have a comparable confidence in regard to averting the climate
catastrophes. When a journalist asked Greta, what, in her opinion, should be
done for the purpose, she replied: why do you ask me? I am only a kid. Ask the
grown-ups!<sup>3</sup> <br />
<br />
</span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">Why This Difference?<br />
<br />
</span></i></b><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I
can explain this difference. In our youth, we had ideals, we believed in
progress, we believed that in course of history, human society would become
ever better, ever more prosperous, ever more egalitarian, i.e. socialistic, and
ever more peaceful. We could believe in all that because we could see the rapid
scientific and technological development taking place in front of our eyes. And
we were aligned with our elder comrades. We all believed, as Erich Honecker,
the former leader of the socialst GDR, used to say: “</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #222222; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Den Sozialismus in seinem Lauf
hält weder Ochs noch Esel auf."<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>(Neither an ox nor an ass can hold back the progress toward socialism.) <br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Today, Thunberg and young people of that
ilk do not have any ideal, nor this kind of confidence. Whereas we were
fighting for an ideal human society, they are only fighting for bare survival
of human society as they know it. And they, generally, hardly see any hope of
succeeding, i.e. unless some miracle happens. On the contrary, at present, they
are seeing that even rich Western societies (USA, France, Sweden e.g.) and emerging
Third World societies (Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, India e.g.) are in deep
trouble. Young people of the poorest 3<sup>rd</sup> World countries (those of
Africa and Central America e.g.) are turning their backs on their native
countries and gate-crashing into the rich countries (USA, Europe, Australia, even
the South African Republic). On the one hand, of course, more and more technological
development is taking place, more and more wonderful goods and pleasure-things
are flooding the markets. But, on the other hand, e.g. waterbodies are getting
choked with plastic waste, air of big cities is becoming unbreathable. Although
more and more goods and services are being produced, more and more people are
being rendered unemployed, are being made to live without any perspective on a
better life.<br />
<br />
</span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">The Current Situation<br />
<br />
</span></i></b><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">In
this situation, against the background of the ongoing global warming and climate
crisis, and against the background of numerous negative scientific reports on
the state of the world,<sup>4</sup> UN climate scientists gave the warning that
unless humanity does the necessary things by 2030 (i.e. 11 years from now) it
would be too late. After this warning, all political leaders of the world
should have got into a panic. But they are carrying on business as usual,
paying only lip service to the goals they had set in Paris in 2015. Instead, it
is today’s youth that are getting into a panic. That is understandable. The
greater part of their life is still lying in front of them. It is their life,
their future, that is being destroyed by the elders. They are not experts in
the matter, but they do understand the danger.<br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, it would be better if
they would understand the problem in some depth. Global warming of today is only
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">the effect</i> of some processes that
have been taking place since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Of
course, it is not just a symptom, it is itself causing damages in the
biosphere. But neither the warming nor the climate crisis and their effects can
be successfully tackled unless their real causes are recognized, namely our </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">industrial mode of
production and consumption<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">,</i></span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"> in
other words, our current industrial civilization, which is absolutely dependent
on burning fossil fuels.<br />
<br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">But
What is the Solution?<br />
<br />
</i></b></span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">As
we know, the school- striking teenagers are only demanding that the politicians
finally do something decisively about the problem. They are not claiming that
they know the solution, although one can also hear some of them glibly mouthing
the same solutions as their radical elder brothers do: “shut down all coal
mines immediately”, “let all fossil fuels remain in the ground”, “all energy
supply must come from renewable sources” etc. As we also know, all ruling
politicians are turning a deaf ear to such demands. Can the problem be solved
at all? If yes, then somebody must come forward and say loudly how.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Below Thunberg’s said article, I read
a few usual comments. But one of them is bold. It reads: “</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The greatest minds in the
Western world are working on this. They have produced no solution because there
is none.”<br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In her article, as if in anticipation of
this comment, Thunberg, the 16 years old, had written like a very wise person, <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 35.45pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Yes, </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">the climate
crisis is the most complex issue that we have ever faced and it's going to take
everything from our part to stop it</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">But the solution is black and white; we need to stop the emissions of
greenhouse gases</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Because either we limit the warming
to 1.5°C over pre-industrial levels, or we don't. Either we reach a tipping
point where we start a chain reaction with events way beyond human control, or
we don't. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Either
we go on as a civilization, or we don't. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">There are no
gray areas when it comes to</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> survival</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">.”<sup><o:p></o:p></sup></span></div>
<div style="margin-left: 35.45pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br /></span></div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Very wise
words, but they still do not offer </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">concrete </i></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">proposal</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> of a solution. She is
reported to have said on another occasion: </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">all the technologies needed for the solution are already there</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">. They need only to be
used. Her elder radical brothers and sisters have been saying this since long,
adding the point that only capitalism and capitalists, aided by subservient
politicians, are preventing their deployment to the necessary extent. Many
politicians and engineers dispute the assertion.<br />
<br />
</span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">The Right Answer to the Conundrum<br />
<br />
</span></i></b><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">At
this point, I think I must intervene, because I think I have the answer to this
conundrum. Read the last two sentences of the above quote carefully. Thunberg
writes, “Either we go on as a civilization, or we don’t”. But who said we must
go on with </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">this </span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">civilization?
With this present civilization of the Western world? If we drop this idea, then
I think <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">survival of the human species</i>
(not of the current Western civilization) is possible – </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">with a different, yet
to be fully described, kind of civilization <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The current civilization of the
Western world is doomed – there is no doubt about that – because it is utterly
dependent on burning huge quantities of fossil fuels. And that, as we know, is
the main cause of the climate crisis. This civilization is doomed for another,
parallel, reason: because of the certainty that sooner or later the fossil fuel
supply, which is exhaustible, will become prohibitively costly – both in money
terms and in terms of energy cost.<sup>5</sup> We are caught, so to speak, in a
pincer grip crisis.<sup> </sup>There are also some lesser causes of the crisis
– capitalism, globalization, greed, human nature, anthropocentrism etc. etc.
etc. The point I want to make here is that </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">any kind of industrial society</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">, even the morally
most perfect industrial socialist society would ultimately come to an end,
because of the two parallel causes stated above. But they might also collapse
for other reasons long before all the fossil fuels of the earth have been
extracted and burnt. Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, father of ecological economics,
who spoke of fossil fuels – </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">the secret of all material
progress of the last 200 years – </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">as </span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">“the limited dowry of mankind’s existence on earth”, already wrote in
1970:<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 35.4pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">“Even with a constant <span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;">population and a constant flow per capita </span>of mined
resources, mankind's dowry will ultimately be exhausted if the career of the
human species is not brought to an end earlier by other factors.” <sup>6</sup> <span style="color: #333333;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-left: 35.4pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><sup><br /></sup></span></div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is not the place to go into details of
this argumentation.<sup>7</sup> It is however possible to indicate, in short,
the existing doubts about <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">the</i>
“solution” that many teenagers in the movement, also all grown-ups in it, so
confidently suggest: energy transition, i.e. supplying, as soon as possible,
all the energy that this civilization needs from renewable sources. I maintain
that that is not possible. Because the EROEI (Energy Return on Energy Invested)
of all “renewable energy” technologies is too low or even negative. Moreover,
all the </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">equipment</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> that are needed to
produce “renewable energy” – solar panels, wind turbines, reinforced concrete
towers and rotors, dams on rivers etc. –cannot be made without the use of
fossil fuels, not yet, and will probably never be.<br />
<br />
</span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">Are the Technologies for the Solution Already There?<br />
<br />
</span></i></b><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">If
we limit ourselves to the current debates on the current situation, even then there
really are two valid points in the arguments of the politicians who dare to
openly oppose the teenagers’ school strike movement. In a German TV debate, a
young, maybe 35 years old, liberal-democratic politician put forward arguments,
which I think I can formulate more clearly and succinctly, because I agree with
them. (1) </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Scientists
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">till now have
only done research on the crisis and formulated theoretical solutions. The
point, however, is to develop the machines, equipment, and technologies to make
the suggested solutions humanly and economically possible. And that is the task
of </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">engineers
and technicians</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">. The said politician maintained that these machines, equipment, and
technologies are still not there. (2) All <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">main</i>
participants in this debate and in all debates connected with the general
ecological crisis take it for granted that all proposed concrete solutions are
already, or must be, feasible <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">and
profitable</i> within the general framework of </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">capitalism</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">. Nobody is saying that
capitalism must be overthrown first. Thunberg and her demonstrating age-mates are
no exception.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As a must-be-clause, it is an
essential condition. But it cannot be fulfilled by many of the machines,
equipment, and technologies proposed by eco-activists, that have of course
proved to be feasible, and were in the past also profitable, but are not
profitable any more. Here are two examples: (a) In Germany, many railway lines and
bus services that formerly connected small towns in the countryside have been
closed down or their frequency have been sharply reduced because of competition
from cars on autobahns. (b) Many materials – plastic packaging materials are
just one example – are not being recycled, simply because that is not
profitable. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But it is also true that, even
ignoring the profitability criterion (because the state is prepared to
subsidize it), engineers could not yet realize some proposed technologies: for
example, the carbon capture and sequestering (CCS) technology. Engineers have
also failed to bring about the miracle of producing more and more goods with
less and less expenditure of resources (decoupling).<br />
<br />
</span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">Any Solution in Sight?<br />
<br />
</span></i></b><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">Frustrated, one may now ask: Is there any solution to
the problem at all? Or must we now settle for just enjoying the good time we
have left? Indeed, I have read about the existence of a stream of thought in
the Western World that maintains that the human species would soon become
extinct through its own acts of omission and commission, and hence there is no
point in trying to stop the process. Instead, we should try to enjoy life now
as much as possible. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of course, those who are today, say,
50 or more years old and are having a good income or have a lot of wealth, may
say so. But they would continuously suffer from a bad conscience, because their
own children and grandchildren, or at least their nephews and nieces, will in
the near future suffer from all the crises that they are generating and
intensifying. So we must not consider the possibility of imminent human
extinction, and we must continue our search for a solution that might have a
chance to be accepted because there is none other.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If we are prepared to drop the
conditions that (a) the searched for solution must be one to ensure that the
current civilization of the Western world can go on, and (b) that the solution
must remain within the parameters of capitalism, then we can think further and
suggest a solution. But even that may not be enough. We must also absolutely realize
that the number of us humans – 7.6 billion and growing – is already too high
for the health of the biosphere.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This solution, in my opinion, is to
strive to transition to a sustainable steady state economy with a much lower
level of production and a much lower human population than today’s. I do not at
present want to speculate on the question: how much lower? Today, I can only
say that the process of contraction must begin immediately. Although the level of
material production must be going down, the level of knowledge must not. Knowledge
would make up the superiority of the sustainable society of the future to any
society of the previous centuries. And what is very important is that the
envisioned future societies must be </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">egalitarian ones. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">Only then will
humans and groups of humans be able to live in peace with each other and in
peace with the rest of nature. I call this kind of a society an </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">eco-socialist society.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"> There
are many others who are thinking in this direction: the advocates of de-growth,
of a solidarity economy, of a steady state market economy etc.<br />
<br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Notes
and References:<br />
<br />
</i></b>1. Among them even Angela Merkel and the General Secretary of her party
the CDU.<br />
2.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> </span><a href="https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/02/03/response-lies-and-hate-let-me-make-some-things-clear-about-my-climate-strike">https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/02/03/response-lies-and-hate-let-me-make-some-things-clear-about-my-climate-strike</a><span class="MsoHyperlink"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br />
</span><br />
</span>3.<span style="color: #333333;"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I did not hear this as o-tone, but as reported
by a TV-journalist.<br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">4. The most detailed
among all is:<br />
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: #333333;">The
Uninhabitable Earth</span></i><span style="color: #333333;"> by David
Wallace-Wells<br />
</span></span><a href="http://www.ecologise.in/2017/07/15/viral-essay-uninhabitable-earth/"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">http://www.ecologise.in/2017/07/15/viral-essay-uninhabitable-earth/</span></a><span class="MsoHyperlink"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br />
</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br />
<span style="color: #333333; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">However, in the end,
Wallace-Wells </span>only repeats the unfounded technological optimism of the
scientists.<br />
<span style="color: #333333; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">5. Energy cost of a thing
is the amount of energy needed to produce it. If e.g. two units of energy needs
to be spent to extract one unit of fossil fuel energy, then the project must be
given up.<br />
6. Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas (1981) <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The
Entropy Law and the Economic Process</i>. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press. P. 296.<br />
7. I have published several essays on this issue in my blogsite<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="http://www.eco-socialist.blogspot.com/">www.eco-socialist.blogspot.com</a>.
I would here like to recommend only two:<br />
<br />
“Saving the Planet, American Style -- A Critical Review, and Some Thoughts and
Ideas”<br />
</span></span><a href="http://eco-socialist.blogspot.com/2016/10/saving-planet-american-style-critical_7.html"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">http://eco-socialist.blogspot.com/2016/10/saving-planet-american-style-critical_7.html</span></a><span class="MsoHyperlink"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br />
<br />
</span></span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; text-decoration: none;">and</span></span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"><br />
</span></span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; text-decoration: none;">“The Global Crisis and Role of So-called Renewable Energies in Solving
It.”<br />
</span></span><a href="https://eco-socialist.blogspot.com/search?q=Global+Crisis"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">https://eco-socialist.blogspot.com/search?q=Global+Crisis</span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />Saral Sarkarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14801618107395376433noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4729735685376119377.post-50007627365593478722018-12-26T02:26:00.001-08:002018-12-26T03:29:11.595-08:00Caste Conflicts and Caste Politics in India -- What Can Be Done to Oppose Them?<br />
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12.0pt;">Currently, we –
progressive and leftist Indians – are appalled at the atrocities that are being
committed against Dalits, Muslims and Christians. We are worried over the
dominance of caste and communal considerations in Indian politics, over the
fact that caste and communal conflicts are replacing class conflict and pushing
socialist and progressive politics to the background. Today, the caste system
not only continues to exist in the private life-praxis of Hindus, but also
dominates the socio-political structure of India – think only of the
caste-based parties and reservations of jobs. It even continues to exist in the
way of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">thinking</i> of the majority of
Hindu Indians. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In this short essay I shall only try
to identify the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">basic</i> factors that
explain how in modern India the situation described above could come about in
spite of the entry of modern education, Western type development, and
successful practice of one-person-one-vote democracy for the last seven
decades. In doing so, I shall focus mainly on the caste problematic. It would
hopefully also help the reader understand why it has been so difficult for the
past and present-day anti-caste reform movements to succeed. <br />
<br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Group
Identity, Love of Tradition, and the Desire to Stand Out Among Many<br />
</i><br />
</b>Division of a society in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">castes</i>
(as distinct from <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">classes</i>) is not
altogether unique to Indian Hindus. The system exists in some form or other in
sub-Saharan Western African countries (Senegal e.g.), it existed in Spanish and
Portuguese colonial societies in South America (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: #F1F1F1;">sociedad de castas</span></i>). Caste
divisions de facto exist among Indian Muslims and Indian Christians. Among the
former, there are said to be 3 castes: <span style="background: white;">Ashrafs
(nobles), middle caste Muslims called <i>Ajlafs</i>, and the lowest,
the <i>Arzals</i>, are equivalents of the Hindu untouchables</span>. Among
the latter, there are some who identify themselves as “Brahmin Christians” and
some whom others identify as Dalit Christians. This makes me think that there
must be some <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">general</i> cause(s) for the
origin of the caste system and its continuity up to our times. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>All presently living humans belong to
the same species, and despite several <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">genetic</i>
variations, throughout their social evolution, their <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">basic</i> <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">behavioral
characteristics</i> remained for the greater part similar. Although, being
social animals, we need to and want to feel <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">belonging
to</i> <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">a group</i> (a family or a larger
community), and although for almost every person one’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">group identity</i> is very important for both <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">material-economic security </i>and<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">
psychological stability</i>, there is a very common characteristic among
humans, namely the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">desire to stand out</i>
from and above the other members of the group – through wealth, power, prestige
or achievements – and feel proud about it.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Such identity groups can be large or
small, and identities can be based on citizenship of a state (e.g. being
Indian), a sub-nationality (e.g. being Maharashtrian), a language (e.g. being
Bengali), a region within a state (e.g. being South Indian), a continent or
part of it (e.g. being European, East Asian), a religion (e.g. being Muslim), a
sect (e.g. being Vaishnavite), a city (e.g. being Hyderabadi or Calcuttan. And
it can also be a caste or caste-group within the larger religious identity
group, viz. Hindus (e.g. being Brahmin, or, in Bengal, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Vaidya</i>). Smaller identity groups within a larger one (e.g. expatriate
Indians in the US or UK) may also desire to stand out and feel proud about it,
e.g. when such Indians hold high positions in the host countries).<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Among Hindus, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">one way</i> of standing out has been to make it known that one is not
just a Hindu, but a Brahmin (or a Kshatriya). <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Kulin Brahmin, Deshasth </i>or<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">
Chitpavan Brahmin</i> are identities that enable (have enabled in the past) a
person bearing this “stamp” to stand out even among Brahmins, among whom the
Mandal Commission (MC, for short) has also identified some OBC Brahmins. Among
Indian Christians, one can stand out by making it known that one is not just a
Christian, but a Brahmin Christian. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In other societies and in other
contexts, one may stand out through a title that one gets bestowed upon by the
monarch or the president of a state: Lord, Sir, Raja, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Padmabhusan</i>, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Padmashree</i>
etc., In Europe, titles denoting nobility are often hereditary, making them
comparable to our Brahmin family names. In academic contexts, one can stand out
through a title such as <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Doctor</i> and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Professor</i>. One can also stand out
through and be proud of being able to claim to be a descendant of a once-rich
or highly educated family or of a family famous for its accomplishments or
contributions to the community or the nation.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Recently, a strange manifestation of
this desire came to the fore when the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Mahars</i>
of Maharashtra (a Dalit caste-group) wanted to celebrate the 200<sup>th</sup>
anniversary of “their victory” (albeit as mercenaries of the British) over the
much larger army of the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Peshwas</i> in
the battle of Koregaon. The point in this celebration has always been to
highlight the valor of the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Mahars</i> as
soldiers. <br />
<br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Economic
and political Factors <br />
<br />
</i></b>Some additional identities (e.g. Brahmin among Hindus) bring not only <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">social prestige, </i>for which all humans
have a weakness, but also very often, as we all know, directly or indirectly,
concrete <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">material-economic advantages and
privileges</i>. This alone is enough to explain why people who have somehow
come to possess such additional “higher” identities mostly also want to
preserve and flaunt them. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is also easy to understand the resentment
of those who neither like the caste identity that others gave their
forefathers, nor possess any additional higher identity, nor, for whatever
reason, have a chance to attain some. For example, the resentment of Dalits,
who, despite India’s progressive constitution and despite much progress in
political consciousness that has been made, are, in many regions of the country
and in many sections of the population, still looked down upon and often suffer
violent oppression both individually and as a group. And all this in addition
to the fact that they generally cannot, because of birth in poor and uneducated
families, make equal use of the chances offered by the Indian economy and
education system.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The desire to stand out or to become
rich and powerful or just to leave poverty behind is present in most humans,
also among poor Dalit/OBC individuals and groups. Even before independence and
particularly since then, the goal of Dalit and anti-caste movements have not
been limited to just making untouchability and other sorts of caste-related
discrimination vanish. Since then, average young Dalits, just like all young
people, have been cherishing higher desires and ambitions. Often these are
exorbitant and unrealistic, mere dreams. But they are there. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I can give two examples from
documentary film reportages: (1) A ten years old girl with proven high
intelligence, whose poor working class parents from a Mumbai slum could send
her only to the lowest quality primary school, was asked what she would like to
become. She answered: astronaut. (2) A school boy from a similar background,
replied to a similar question, he would like to be Bill Gates of India. Why
shouldn’t they cherish such dreams? Why shouldn’t the government give them a
chance? Why shouldn’t <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">society</i> allow
it to happen? After all, “miracles” do sometimes take place!<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So Dalit and anti-caste movements
always conflated in their goal what actually are <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">two different things</i> – (a) fighting against the discriminatory and
oppressive <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">caste system</i> as such and
(b) economic and educational advancement of the poor, which generally should be
the task of any modern nation state. Thus the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Satyashodhak Samaj</i> (Truth-Seekers’ Society), founded in 1873 by
Jyotirao Phule, pursued the goal to</span><span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-size: 12.0pt;"> liberate the less
privileged in society – such as women, </span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shudra" title="Shudra"><span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-size: 12.0pt;">Shudra</span></a></span><span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-size: 12.0pt;">, and </span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalit" title="Dalit"><span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-size: 12.0pt;">Dalit</span></a></span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-size: 12.0pt;"> – </span></span><span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-size: 12.0pt;">from exploitation
and oppression, for which process education was thought to be of great
importance. Under its later leaders, economic goals played a stronger part in
the activities of the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Samaj</i>. In 1902,
Shahu Maharaj, who was the ruler of the princely state of Kolhapur (Western
India), reserved 50 percent of his state’s civil service jobs for all
communities other than Brahmins, Prabhus and Parsis. This movement was later,
not unreasonably, termed the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Anti-Brahman
Movement.<br />
</i></span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Also
in the report of the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Mandal Commission </i>(1979–83),<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i>which was mandated to </span><span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-size: 12.0pt;">"identify the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">socially or
educationally</i> backward <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">classes</i>
" (popularly known as OBCs = other backward classes) of India,</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12.0pt;"> it is argued:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 35.4pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-size: 12.0pt;">"It may appear the upliftment of Other Backward Classes is part of the
larger national problem of removal of mass poverty. This is only partially
correct. The deprivation of OBCs is a very special case of the larger national
issue: here the basic question is that of social and educational backwardness,
and poverty is only a direct consequence of these two crippling caste-based
handicaps. As these handicaps are embedded in our social structure, their
removal will require far-reaching structural changes. No less important will be
changes in the perception of the problems of OBCs by the ruling classes of the
country."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 35.4pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12.0pt;">How to Explain the
Durability of the Caste System<br />
</span></i></b><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12.0pt;"><br />
Because for a human’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">material-economic
security and mental health</i> the feeling of belonging to an identity group
(next only to a family) is important, one is obliged and expected to adhere to
the rules, rituals, mores, ethical norms (e.g. of solidarity) and traditions of
one’s identity group(s). This is comparable to the fact that for belonging to
and remaining in a professional group – e.g. engineers, doctors, lawyers etc. –
one has to follow its written and unwritten code of conduct. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Now because, in Hindu society, caste
has in the past been the most important among a person’s identities, it is no
surprise that it still plays an important role in most caste Hindu’s private
sphere – in daily rituals, in eating and drinking norms, in marriage,
socializing etc. In backward rural areas, even matters of the private sphere of
Hindus – such as (inter-caste) love affairs and marriage, a Dalit eating in an
eatery or drinking water from a well or worshipping in a temple – often become
a matter of the public sphere of the village. And in the larger economic and
political spheres, generally speaking, decisions on personnel matters such as
appointments and promotions are still to a large extent influenced by one’s
caste. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I can give two examples: In my
extended family circle, a young (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Kayastha</i>)
woman fell in love and married a Brahmin man. They were both communists, the
young man even a member of the party. When their son became 12 years old, I got
an invitation to his sacred thread ceremony. I was surprised. I could not
imagine they would do this. Accosted by me, the man said, he could not offend
his family. It is only them he can rely upon if he would someday need help. His
wife said she could not oppose the wish of her husband. That was in the 1950s.
The other example is from the 1970s. A highly educated leftist male friend of
mine, a man from a rich <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Kamma</i> family
of Hyderabad, married and took a dowry. When his political friends criticized
him, he said apologetically: what could he have done? It was his family that
found a suitable bride and arranged the traditional style marriage for him;
and, after all, it was thanks to his father’s connections that he had got a
lecturer’s job. These were both <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">micro</i>economic
and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">micro</i>-political decisions.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That is also the case in election
times. In large parts of India, among caste-conscious Hindu’s, voting and
campaigning for a candidate from the same caste or the same larger
cast-identity group (e.g. Dalits, OBCs) as the one to which the person belongs,
is not only seen as one of the latter’s social obligations that overrides other
considerations. It may also, in case this candidate wins, bring material
benefits to her or her caste group. In this respect, it is not much different
in other kinds of identity groups – e.g. religious, ethnic or language identity
groups. In particular cases of candidates, it may be a justifiable or
unjustifiable, a good or bad choice, and exceptions are always there. At the
provincial level, there is also a big exception, namely West Bengal. But even
here, if we look back to pre-partition Bengal, we see that Bengali Dalits (in
those days called <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Namashudras</i>) did
pursue caste politics.<sup>1 </sup>The point here is only that this is largely
how Indian politics functions. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The points made till now explain why the
caste system still remains entrenched in the conscious and subconscious
thinking of Hindus and resists all reforms and efforts to eradicate it. They
are also the reasons behind the rise of parties that are based on caste,
religion, language, ethnicity, province or region (e.g. Samajwady Party,
Bahujan Samaj Party, Jamat-e- Islami parties, Shiv Sena, Telugu Desham Party
etc.). The secular all-India parties (Congress and the ideology-based communist
parties) are losing ground. The ruling all-India communal party, the BJP, is
successful, because its communal base, the Hindus, constitute the 80% majority
of India’s population. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There are also <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">macro</i>-economic and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">macro</i>-political
factors that partly explain the continued strength of the caste system. The
Mandal Commission (in the following, MC for short) argued for reservations for
OBCs, inter alia, in the following words:<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><o:p></o:p></b></span><br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-bottom: 1.2pt; margin-left: 35.4pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 5.0pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;">“</span></b><span lang="EN" style="font-size: 12pt;">Assuming that a child from an advanced class family and that of a backward
class family had the same intelligence at the time of their birth, it is
obvious that owing to vast differences in social, cultural and environmental
factors, the former will beat the latter by lengths in any <i>competitive<b> </b></i>field. Even
if an advanced class child's intelligence quotient was much lower compared to
the child of backward class, chances are that the former will still beat the
latter in any competition where selection is made on the basis of 'merit'.“<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<h1 style="background: white; margin-bottom: 4.55pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal;"> This is a
sound argument. Note, however, the key words in it, namely “<i>competition” and “competitive field</i>”.
These relate MC’s argument more to the <i>prevailing</i>
economic system than to the caste system. For people fighting for social
justice, the only call that logically follows from this is: <i>abolish the capitalist competitive </i>system.
The mandate of the MC was, however, only to "identify the <i>socially or educationally</i> <i>backward classes</i> (OBCs)” and to make
recommendations for<i> their</i> “<i>upliftment</i>”, not to make recommendations
for annihilating caste.<br />
To what extent the recommended reservations
contributed toward uplifting the OBCs in general is difficult to answer. Many
criticisms have been expressed against these. The sharpest and the most
convincing among all has been made by Justice Iyer even before the MC was
appointed (1975): <o:p></o:p></span></h1>
<h1 style="background: white; margin-bottom: 4.55pt; margin-left: 35.4pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal;">"The danger of 'reservation', …. , is
three-fold. Its benefits, by and large, are <i>snatched
away</i> by the top creamy layer of the 'backward' castes or classes, thus
keeping the weakest among the weak always weak and leaving the fortunate layers
to consume the whole cake".<o:p></o:p></span></h1>
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12.0pt;">
</span><br />
<h1 style="background: white; margin-bottom: 4.55pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal;"> What we
know for sure, however, is that they did not contribute anything toward <i>annihilating caste</i>. What is worse,
today, those who really want to annihilate caste face a great <i>structural difficulty</i>: Thanks to the reservations,
belonging to a lower or backward caste has become an advantage in the job
market and in the matter of getting a scholarship or a place in higher and better
institutions of learning. For this reason, the formerly underprivileged
majority of the citizenry of India, i.e. members of SCs, STs, and OBCs taken
together, themselves <i>have no interest any
more in annihilating caste. </i>In truth, they have now strong economic interest
in <i>perpetuating the caste system</i>, so
that their children and grandchildren too may enjoy these advantages even if
and when their families have risen to the “creamy lair”. All they want and
demand is more compensation for their “unfortunate” birth in a Dalit or OBC
family. This is why we saw some time ago that the <i>Jaths</i>, from whose ranks India even got a Prime Minister, and the <i>Patidars</i> staged huge, powerful, and even
destructive demonstrations demanding reservations for their youth too. For the
same reason, even many Muslim politicians are nowadays eager to define Muslims
as a backward class.<br />
Implementation of the MC
recommendations divided Indian society into two <i>fighting</i> groups: the beneficiaries (i.e. Dalits and OBCs) on the
one side and the excluded rest (the upper castes, Muslims etc.) on the other.
Soon after the acceptance and implementation (1990 onwards) of the MC
recommendations, upper-caste young people, who henceforth imagined themselves
to be the victims of the caste-based reservation system, started a protest
campaign that included violent demonstrations, self-immolations etc.<br />
<br />
</span><i><span lang="EN" style="font-size: 12pt;">Perspectives and
Conclusions<br />
</span></i><span lang="EN" style="font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal;"><br />
Today, macroeconomic trends do not indicate that the <i>competitive field</i>, that the MC mentioned as an argument, would soon
become any less competitive. Indeed, the opposite is likely to happen, what
with continuously growing population (at the rate of 16 million a year) and
number of college graduates, and with expanding mechanization, automation and
digitalization. Moreover, the basic <i>ecological
and resource-related</i> <i>limits to growth</i>
are already having their feared impacts. These problems must be addressed very
soon. If, however, in the meantime, also the present-day policies of
reservation remain in place, the resulting upliftment of some poor Dalits and
OBCs, that we would welcome so much, would come at the price of ever more caste
hatred and conflicts – especially if we consider the growing belligerence of
both caste groups. Such conflicts are not <i>class
conflicts</i>. Also in future, they would not be directed against capitalism.
There is nothing positive about fighting for one’s own caste interest.<br />
This short essay is not suitable for
making detailed alternative recommendations. But a few half-baked ideas can be
presented: (a) Against the background of facts mentioned in the previous
paragraph, it is obvious that at least population growth must be stopped, if
not also the growth of labor-saving technologies. (b) For uplifting the
educational level of <i>economically poor
classes,</i> the state and society should create and reserve for them more
scholarships (i.e. only financial aid). These should also be available to
children and youth of <i>poor families</i>
among the upper castes and not to those of well-off families among the lower
castes and OBCs. Let the state also pay for all sorts of extra coaching for
such youth. (c) Government jobs and university places for students must be
given only on the basis of merit. It is not a small matter. It harms the people
as a whole, if unqualified and incompetent people are appointed in responsible
positions as doctors, engineers, administrators, military commanders etc. <br />
The caste system is a <i>social </i>evil that defies laws and
constitutional provisions. As we have seen, even conversion to another religion
– to Islam in the past, then to Christianity, and more recently to Buddhism –
did not help.<sup> </sup>The law-and-order authorities must do their duties,
but the system can only be made to <i>wither
away</i> by a strong <i>social movement</i>
and a <i>cultural revolution</i>, in which<i> enlightened members of the upper castes</i>
should play a leading role. <br />
It is my hunch that in ancient times,
the <i>economic-material basis</i> of the
caste system has been that dirty, hard and menial work with poor rewards were
naturally detested and unwanted.<sup>2</sup> They were therefore easily
inherited by the children from the parents. The brutality of the Hindu caste
system consisted in the fact that the ruling and/or powerful elites <i>compelled</i> the children of e.g. <i>methors</i> (removing excrements), <i>chamars</i> (tanners), <i>chandals</i> (cremating corpses) etc. to inherit such jobs by declaring
them to be <i>ritually</i> dirty and the
workers <i>ritually</i> untouchable for
finer people. Refinements, rationalizations and sanctification of the system in
the ancient canonical texts (<i>Manusmriti</i>
et. al) came later. (d) It is therefore not enough for enlightened upper caste
Indians to avow their rejection of this system. They must do more, e.g.,
following <i>Gandhiji’s example</i>, not
only to clean their WCs at home, which is not a dirty work anymore, but also a public
latrine in their own town – even if only for a day or two per month. I remember
a scene in Attenborough’s film on Gandhiji, where the latter insisted that his
wife must also clean the latrine of the Ashram. (e) Or, to give another
example, let us make it impossible to guess a person’s caste (and, why not,
religion) from his family name. Thus Dilip Chakrabarty’s son could be named
David Bagh or Indra Mandal). There is no need for me to invent more possible
actions and demands. If they have the will, upper caste activists can do it
themselves.<br />
(f) In the recent past, some actions
of some Dalit activists were provocative, hence <i>counterproductive</i>, e.g. celebrating the 200<sup>th</sup>
anniversary of “the Mahars’ victory” mentioned above. Or, was anything gained,
when some <i>Adivasis</i> lodged a court
case trying to prevent a Durga-Puja celebration<i>, </i>a tradition that Bengalis love so much?<sup>3 </sup>It is better
to think of constructive actions. <br />
<br />
</span><i><span lang="EN" style="font-size: 12pt;">Notes and
references<br />
<br />
</span></i><span lang="EN" style="font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal;">Almost
all data used here including data and quotes from the Mandal Commission Report
can be found in the internet. <br />
</span><span lang="EN" style="font-size: 12pt;"><br />
</span><span lang="EN" style="font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal;">1. “</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal;">Caste vs Religion – Why
Caste Politics Failed in Bengal”<br />
by Ayan Guha <br />
<br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-weight: normal; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><a href="http://www.frontierweekly.com/articles/vol-49/49-2/49-2-Why%20Caste%20Politics%20Failed%20in%20Bengal.html"><span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-themecolor: text1;">http://www.frontierweekly.com/articles/vol-49/49-2/49-2-Why%20Caste%20Politics%20Failed%20in%20Bengal.html</span></a></span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><span lang="EN" style="font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal;"><br />
</span></span><span lang="EN" style="font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal;"><br />
2. For general knowledge on references to the caste system in ancient texts I
can recommend the following articles:<br />
<br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal;">“Caste
is the Cruelest Exclusion”<br />
By GailOmvedt<br />
<br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-weight: normal; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><a href="http://infochangeindia.org/agenda/social-exclusion/caste-is-the-cruellest-exclusion.html"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;">http://infochangeindia.org/agenda/social-exclusion/caste-is-the-cruellest-exclusion.html</span></a></span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; font-weight: normal; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><br />
<br />
</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal;">And<br />
<br />
“Doctoring History For Political Goals: Origin of Caste System in India”<br />
By Ram Puniyani <br />
<br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-weight: normal; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><a href="https://countercurrents.org/puniyani041114.htm"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-themecolor: text1;">https://countercurrents.org/puniyani041114.htm</span></a></span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal;"><br />
<br />
</span></span><span lang="EN" style="font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal;">3. “</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-weight: normal; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><a href="http://www.countercurrents.org/2017/09/29/adivasis-dance-today-the-first-fir-filed-against-durga-puja/" title="Permalink to Adivasis Dance Today: The First Ever FIR Filed Against Durga Puja"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-themecolor: text1;">Adivasis Dance Today:
The First Ever FIR Filed Against Durga Puja</span></a></span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal;">”<br />
<br />
</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-weight: normal; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><a href="http://www.countercurrents.org/2017/09/29/adivasis-dance-today-the-first-fir-filed-against-durga-puja/"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-themecolor: text1;">http://www.countercurrents.org/2017/09/29/adivasis-dance-today-the-first-fir-filed-against-durga-puja/</span></a></span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal;"><br />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br />
<!--[endif]--></span></span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></h1>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-bottom: 1.2pt; margin-left: 35.4pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 5.0pt;">
<br /></div>
Saral Sarkarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14801618107395376433noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4729735685376119377.post-8088539249180998782018-11-12T03:20:00.000-08:002018-11-12T03:20:42.285-08:00India's Unwelcome Immigrants Problem -- Identity Politics Beats Class Politics<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">Foreword:<br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br />
For many decades now, all over the world, identity politics has become a major
cause of social conflict. Masses of common people have been forming themselves
into racial, ethnic, religious and linguistic identity groups, and, from time
to time, they have been fighting against each other, often by violent means,
for power and a higher share of the given resources of the country. For
leftists, socialists and communists of all kinds, it is highly regrettable,
because they are advocates and practitioners of class politics. They would
rather see the masses fighting against their class adversaries. This long-term trend
has particularly been strong in India with its multiplicity of languages,
religions and castes.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Against this general background,
recently, a particular old conflict broke out anew in Assam, one of the
Easternmost provinces of India. Assamese speaking people, the original
inhabitants of the province, have been complaining since long that people from
the other provinces of India, particularly Bengalis from West Bengal and the republic
of Bangladesh, are legally and illegally immigrating into Assam and occupying
jobs, business opportunities, and arable land, which, they say, should go to
the Assamese, the sons of the soil. To make matters more complicated, in the
past few decades, the number and percentage of Muslims, who have for a few
centuries now constituted a substantial minority of Assam, have been swelling
because of illegal immigration of Bengali Muslims from Bangladesh, thus also fanning
the already existing Hindu-Muslim conflicts in the province. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In order to contain the anti-foreigner
agitations of the Assamese and allay their fear that they were losing control
of their own country, the authorities acceded to their demand that the names of
genuine Indian citizens residing in Assam be ascertained and published in a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">National Register of Citizens</i> (NRC). This
was first done in 1951. A similar operation was carried out in 2017 and an
updated NRC was published on 30<sup>th</sup> July 2018. In the process, it was
found that some four million residents of Assam were not citizens of India.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A debate then ensued on the question
regarding the future of these illegal immigrants, the non-citizen residents in
India. In the process, also the whole problem of illegal immigration in Assam
was discussed. At that point, I intervened in the discussion with the following
article. It was published in Frontier Weekly in the beginning of September 2018.<br />
<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(NB. Non-Indian readers would be well
advised to first read the articles of Sharma and Gohain referred to in my
article.)<br />
<br />
</span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 16.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">On the Assam Conflicts, NRC,
Illegal Immigration etc.<br />
<br />
</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">Many thanks to the authors
Devabrata Sharma and Hiren Gohain (Frontier, 19 – 25<sup>th</sup> August 2018) for
giving the valuable background info materials, which enable us to get a better
and deeper understanding of the multifaceted conflicts in Assam.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, it would have been better –
both in regard to identifying the most important cause of the conflicts and in
regard to suggesting solutions – if we also had some relevant statistical data,
particularly some on the demographic development in Assam.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Assam is a state where, in 2001,
Assamese was the mother tongue of less than half of the population (48.8%) and
Bengali that of a substantial minority (27.5%), where Hinduism in all its
varieties was, in 2011, the religion of 61.5% of the population and Islam that
of 34.2%, where, in 2011, Muslims were the majority in 9 out of the 27 districts.
On economic development in Assam we read: “</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: DE; mso-themecolor: text1;">The <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">per capita</i>
income of Assam was higher than the national average soon after Indian
Independence. But it has slipped since, and the difference has become larger
since liberalization of the Indian economy in the 1980s.”</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"> In such a state, the
population grew from 8 million in 1951 to 31 Million in 2011. It is estimated
to be 35 Million in 2018. (All data from Internet and Wikipedia)<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Seen against the background of these
data and given India’s history full of all kinds of conflict since the early 20<sup>th</sup>
century, it is no wonder that Assam has been suffering so many communal and
linguistic conflicts. That Sharma blames the British for all these does not
surprise me. It is an age-old explanatory model of the standard Left to blame
imperialism/colonialism/CIA for everything bad. (Another such model is
capitalism.) As if it was the British who was to blame for Assam’s and the
Indian subcontinent’s huge exponential population growth since 1951, as if mass
migration of poor people to greener pastures in other countries is not a
universal phenomenon.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Gohain at least comes close to the
truth when he speaks of “natural resources” and “unemployment and
landlessness”. More so, when he speaks of the “fact” that “the Indigenes” (i.e.
the Assamese) have been “robbed </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: DE; mso-themecolor: text1;">of their power to decide <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">how many</i> guests they could welcome in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">their homes</i>.” At another place, he truthfully uses the term
“aliens” for non-Assamese Indians and Bangladeshis. For such people’s coming to
Assam he uses the term “infiltration”. (Trump uses the term <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">invasion</i>).<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But neither Gohain nor Sharma mention
the ever worsening population problem, the fact that Assam and the Indian
subcontinent, in fact the whole world is simply overpopulated. Today, if we do
not take cognizance of this fact, we cannot really and fully explain any
serious problem in the world. We then cannot explain why already in the 1960s
to 1980s, many Maharashtrians complained that South Indians were occupying the
urban areas and the jobs of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">their
territory</i>. They wanted to push the South Indians out of Maharashtra. They
did the same, in 1914, 1915, 1917, with regard to Biharis, who had occupied
many menial jobs (private car drivers e.g.) in the urban areas. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The feeling that <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">aliens</i> are infiltrating and occupying <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">their</i> “home” is not only troubling Assam, but also many other
countries of the world. Today, in Europe, Australia, and the USA, it is called
the problem of illegal immigrants or too many immigrants. In such countries, it
is the main cause of the recent rise of fascistic forces. In Sweden, it has
already destroyed the formerly glorious social-democratic model of an ideal
society<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Sharma has also very generally
thought about what to do, but he could not come up with any concrete proposal.
He writes about “assimilating the huge immigrant masses in a democratic way”,
“providing opportunities for those who are left out”, and “democratization of
the polity”. But what opportunities can help assimilate the huge masses of
immigrants other than jobs and small businesses, which are already in very
short supply for the indigenes? Democratization of the polity does not create
jobs and other sources of income! <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I have an idea for a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">long-term</i> solution of the problem. We
may learn from the Chinese. When Deng Xiaoping took over power in China in 1979,
he, firstly, opened up China for exploitation by foreign imperialist
capitalists. This has already been done in India. Secondly, Deng initiated and
enforced the one-child policy. This has not been done in India. Of course, it
promises to bear fruit only in the long run. But it must be done, while in the
short and middle term we somehow muddle through. For, as Paul Ehrlich said,
“Whatever [be] your cause, it is a lost cause unless we control population
[growth].” There is no other <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">solution </i>for
the problems that are plaguing not only Assam but also the whole Indian
subcontinent. Democrats might object that such a policy violates human rights
or reproductive rights. But firstly, the right to produce as many children as
one wishes is not a universal human right, and secondly, it is usual, because
necessary, to curtail human rights in times of emergency. I agree with Hiren
Gohain when he writes: “ … human rights … is an ideal goal, not a reality
during a period of transition to that.” For a nation, survival has top
priority.<br />
<br />
</span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">References:<br />
<br />
</span></i></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Devabrata Sharma: “Assam – Contextualising NRC
Historically”<br />
</span><a href="http://frontierweekly.com/articles/vol-51/51-7/51-7-Assam%20-%20Contextualising%20NRC%20Historically.html"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">http://frontierweekly.com/articles/vol-51/51-7/51-7-Assam%20-%20Contextualising%20NRC%20Historically.html</span></a><span class="MsoHyperlink"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br />
<br />
</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Hirain Gohain: “An Open Letter to Indians”<br />
</span><a href="http://frontierweekly.com/articles/vol-51/51-7/51-7-An%20Open%20Letter%20to%20Indians.html"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">http://frontierweekly.com/articles/vol-51/51-7/51-7-An%20Open%20Letter%20to%20Indians.html</span></a><span class="MsoHyperlink"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br />
<br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[endif]--></span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />Saral Sarkarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14801618107395376433noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4729735685376119377.post-50856734689878182612018-10-18T03:36:00.000-07:002018-10-18T03:44:22.202-07:00French, Spanish and English Translations Of My Books and Texts<br />
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst" style="line-height: normal;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The <span style="color: red;">French translation </span>of my book <br />
<br />
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Eco-Socialism or Eco-Capitalism – A
Critical Analysis of Humanity’s Fundamental Choices<br />
</i><br />
can henceforth be found in the internet on a new website, which has taken over
all major texts of the Initiative Oekosozialismus, which were formerly available
in the Initiative’s own website that does not exist anymore. The French translation
can be downloaded by clicking on the link<br />
<br />
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><a href="http://oekosozialismus.net/netzwerk/"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">http://oekosozialismus.net/netzwerk/</span></a></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br />
<br />
then scrolling down the page to the button <br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: normal; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 20.0pt;">Français<br />
</span><b><span lang="EN-US" style="background: #f4f4f4; color: #333333; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 11.5pt;">Livre: Saral Sarkar,
Éco-socialisme ou éco-capitalisme?</span><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: normal;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="background: #f4f4f4; color: #333333; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 11.5pt;">and clicking
on it. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The same procedure should be followed
for downloading the </span><span lang="EN-US" style="background: #f4f4f4; color: red; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 11.5pt;">English</span><span lang="EN-US" style="background: #f4f4f4; color: #333333; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 11.5pt;">, </span><span lang="EN-US" style="background: #f4f4f4; color: red; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 11.5pt;">Spanish </span><span lang="EN-US" style="background: #f4f4f4; color: #333333; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 11.5pt;">and </span><span lang="EN-US" style="background: #f4f4f4; color: red; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 11.5pt;">German
texts including books </span><span lang="EN-US" style="background: #f4f4f4; color: #333333; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 11.5pt;">(translations and originals)
of mine and Bruno Kern.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />Saral Sarkarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14801618107395376433noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4729735685376119377.post-451298814763122252018-09-11T05:35:00.000-07:002018-09-16T02:17:42.078-07:00From Marxist Socialism to Eco-Socialism --- Turning Points of a Personal Journey Through a Theory of Socialism<br />
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">At the beginning of the journey stood the most famous two sentences of
Marx, which I read as a college student:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left: 35.4pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">“Philosophers
have hitherto only <i>interpreted</i> the world in various ways; the point however
is to <i>change</i> it.”<sup>1</sup></span><sup><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></sup></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">I was immediately faced with a dilemma. There was no need for me to
interpret the world; that had already been done for us by Marx, Engels, Lenin,
Stalin et al. But, I thought, in order to be able to contribute to changing the
world, I must at least understand it. The purpose was clear to me: to work for
creating a socialist/communist society. But for understanding the world, I knew
I must read a lot, at least a lot of Marx, Engels and Lenin, a lot of history
plus current affairs, and also a lot of modern Marxist literature on the social
sciences.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For the average socialist/communist
activist, however, it was the sheer volume of reading required for the purpose
that posed the greatest difficulty. She must work to earn her livelihood, work
for her conviction, and read a few of the relevant texts. As for me, I had the
ambition, and I thought I also had the cerebral capacity, to read all the
important works of Marx, Engels, Lenin et al. But being materially in the
position of an average activist, it was clear to me in my early youth that I
could only become an activist, not a Marxologist.<br />
<br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The
Moscow Trials and Destalinization<br />
<br />
</i></b>In 1953 – I was then 17 and in college – I realized how little I knew, when
I heard for the first time of the notorious Moscow Trials of 1936–1938,<sup>2</sup>
in which several famous leaders of the Russian revolution were accused of
treason, convicted, and then executed. What was worse, I heard it from an
anti-communist class mate. I was shocked to hear that Stalin, our great leader
of those days, was the perpetrator of these and similar other crimes against
several hundred thousand innocent and patriotic citizens and communists. When
asked, my communist classmates said they had never heard of it before. But,
they opined, it surely was imperialist propaganda. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I had started reading the history of
the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. In the course of this reading, I later
got the official version of the story: the accused were traitors, agents of the
enemy etc. This story haunted me for a few years. How could so many communist
leaders and activists of the revolution have been traitors, I wondered. The
issue was settled in 1956, when Khrushchev, in his secret speech to the 20th
Congress of the CPSU(B) confirmed the veracity of what was formerly dubbed
imperialist propaganda. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>1956, when a thorough destalinization
began in the Soviet Union, was a watershed year. It resulted in a huge, indescribable
mental shock, not only for me, but also, I think, for all young communists of
those days, who used to think of the Soviet Union as if it were a golden
country, our materialized utopia. Thereafter, I began gradually distancing
myself from the Soviet model of socialism. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But among older communists, at least
in India, there was no outbreak of disloyalty to the Soviet communist leadership.
If asked, they used to say, in the general sense: if in the past mistakes have
been made, then it is good that they are being corrected. For me, it was only a
logical and rational reaction, not a satisfactory one. Was it simply a case of
the leader making a few mistakes? It troubled me very much that the crimes were
committed in the name of a communist revolution and in the name of defending a
“socialist” state inspired by Marx and his theories. After all, Marx and Engels
had endorsed use of force in their kind of revolution. In the concluding para
of their <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Manifesto</i>, they write inter
alia, “The communists … declare that their ends can be attained <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">only</i> by the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">forcible</i> overthrow of …”. We Indians knew that Mahatma Gandhi had strictly
and on principle opposed any use of violence in our independence movement. Yet questions
regarding ends and means had not crossed my mind before 1956. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Destalinization was also the cause
and 1956 the time when my interest in Marx and Marxism began to wane. I
thought, it could not be that just two thinkers of the second half of the 19<sup>th</sup>
century, however brilliant they might have been, had thought through all the
problems of mankind, even those that would arise many decades after their
death. It could not be, I thought further, that the results of their analysis
of the situation prevailing in the 19<sup>th</sup> century were also valid in
the 20<sup>th</sup> century. So I started taking an interest in other subjects
and other thinkers too, e.g. in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Malthusianism</i>,
and Keynesianism. <br />
<br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Failure
of the Russian and the Chinese Revolution <br />
<br />
</i></b>Both the October Revolution (1917–1921) and the Chinese Revolution
(1930s to 1949) were made or at least led by people who were communists and
Marxists, at least they said they were inspired by Marxism. After success on
the battlefields, they tried to build up in their respective countries a
socialist society following economic and political principles they claimed were
based on and/or derived from Marxism. In the long run both revolutions failed. The
Russians and the Chinese themselves willfully reintroduced capitalism in their
countries. The Russians openly confess to capitalism, whereas Chinese society
is today in reality a capitalist one that is only ruled by self-styled “communists”.
<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Can their failures be put down to <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">flaws in the ideology</i> called Marxism?
Today, on the occasion of the 200th birth anniversary of Marx, when his total theoretical-intellectual
contribution to recent world history is being discussed, criticized, and
celebrated, this question needs to be answered. But before that come the
questions (1) whether the vision of socialism that the Soviet Russians and the
Chinese, the Cubans and the Vietnamese tried to realize – and thereby failed –
was really the Marxist one, and (2) whether it was at all realizable. We should
not seek an answer to them just in the academic sense of seeking truth for the
sake of truth, but also and especially <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">in
the practical sense</i>. For if we fail to get the right answer to these questions,
we may, in our zeal, make many more mistakes: We may then pursue a wrong goal
or choose the wrong path to reach the right goal, or we may make a wrong choice
in regard to both.<br />
<br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Marxian
and Marxist<br />
<br />
</i></b>There are some disputes regarding the content of Marxism. Once, when he
was told about a person who was claiming to be a Marxist while expressing
un-Marxist views, Marx replied in frustration: “All I know is that I am not a
Marxist.” Ever since, it has become useful to differentiate between the terms <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Marxian</i> and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Marxist</i>. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Marxian</i> would
mean: strictly based on what Marx himself has written. And <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Marxist</i> would mean: based on Marxian thoughts as developed and
presented by Engels, Lenin and later theoretician-adherents of Marx. For this
reason, Marxist theory cannot be regarded as a monolithically consistent
theory. Even in the works of Marx himself, inner contradictions and errors have
been found by Marx scholars. No wonder. After all, Marx’s writing career
stretched over some forty years. Also no wonder that some Marx scholars have reportedly
found it necessary to differentiate between the writings of the young (early) Marx
and those of the mature (later) Marx.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Fortunately, we can give a quick and
short reply to the question put above (in connection with the crimes of Stalinist
USSR and failure of the Soviet and Chinese Revolutions). Pure Marxists say, in
the general sense: what has all that to do with Marx and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Marxian theory</i>? Nothing. None of the socialist/communist
revolutions that have taken place till now has been a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Marxian</i> revolution. To give just one recently published example, Paresh
Chattopadhyay, an eminent Marx scholar, wrote<sup>3 </sup>criticizing a
description of the Cuban Revolution as a Marxist one:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left: 35.4pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">“However, what kind of revolution are we speaking of?
….. we are invited to a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Marxian</i> kind
of socialism. The rub is precisely here. Why is the need for bringing in Marx
whose whole outlook on socialism is the exact opposite? To refresh our memory,
there is no ‘socialist dictatorship’ in Marx’s universe of discourse. For Marx
it is a postulate that the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">laboring
people must emancipate themselves</i>. This is the outcome of the ‘<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">autonomous movement</i> of the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">immense majority</i> in the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">interest of the immense majority’</i>. And
this <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">self-emancipation</i> means the …
establishment of a ‘<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">union of free
individuals</i>’, which alone is socialism. It follows, secondly, that this is
not the task of a group styling itself as the vanguard irrespective of the
group’s revolutionary ardor and spirit of self-sacrifice.”</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></i></b></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Critique of Pure Marx<br />
<br />
</span></i></b><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">I trust Chattopadhyay’s
scholarship. This must be a correct paraphrase of the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Marxian ideal </i>of socialist revolution (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">emancipation</i>, as he also calls it.). This quote deals with the
questions regarding <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">who</i> and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">how </i>of a socialist revolution, i.e. the
questions: who are the agents of the revolution (emancipation), and how do they
go about it – before, during, and after the revolution proper? But it also
shows how wrong, how unrealistic, and how utopian in the negative sense Marx has
been. For hardly any revolution that has been called proletarian, socialist, or
people’s revolution, successful or not, could do without a leadership, most
members of which usually came from classes other than the proletariat. Even the
leadership of the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Paris Commune</i> of
1871, as far as I have learnt, did not come exclusively from the working class.
<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I believe, without a good leadership,
any attempt to overthrow a hated regime or an exploitative-oppressive system
can only end in defeat or a fruitless, chaotic rebellion – even if the crisis
situation that triggered it had been favorable to such an attempt. I am of
course saying these things without great knowledge of history. But I believe
evidence to the contrary must be rare if it at all exists. Also for building a
“socialist” society after a successful takeover of power, as, for example, in
Russia after 1917 and in Yugoslavia after 1945, a strong leadership proved to
be indispensable.<br />
<br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Revolutionary
Proletariat?<br />
<br />
</i></b>Marx and Engels had "discovered" the revolutionary proletariat very early
in their life, much before the proletariat even became a sizeable class in
Germany, and they did it purely deductively. They explained it in 1845 as
follows:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left: 35.4pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">“It is not a question of what
this or that proletarian, or even the whole proletariat, at the moment<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> regards</i> as its aim. It is a question of
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">what the proletariat is</i>, and what, in
accordance with this <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">being</i>, it will
be historically compelled to do. Its aim and historical action is visibly and
irrevocably foreshadowed in its own life situation as well as in the whole
organization of bourgeois society today.”<sup>5 </sup><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Three years later, in their <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Communist Manifesto</i>, they apodictically
proclaimed, “The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains.” Also
apodictic was their assertion that “the working men have no country,” which was
logically followed by the call “Working men of all countries, unite!”<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On this question, Lenin convinced me
(and millions of other activists) more when he asserted that the </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">laboring people cannot
emancipate themselves through an autonomous movement of their own, because they
lacked the will and the revolutionary consciousness required for this goal,
which must be brought to them by a group of professional revolutionaries. A few
years before</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> Lenin, Bernstein had
maintained that proletarians of the industrially advanced countries of Europe
did not even have any reason for willing to overthrow capitalism. He asserted
that educated/trained workers/employees actually wanted to be integrated into
the given system and rise within it.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For Lenin, Tito, Mao, and Ho-Chi-Min,
and later also for Fidel and Che, the primary, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">immediate,
and urgent task</i> had been to overthrow the hated oppressive regimes of their
respective countries – in the case of China, Yugoslavia, and Viet Nam, these
were even foreign imperialist invaders occupying the country. There was no
question of trying this overthrow later, when the proletariat would have become
the immense majority of the population. After fulfilling this immediate task, Lenin,
Tito, Mao, and Ho, being communists, could not but try to build a socialist
society on the ground and in the situation they found given. They could not have
postponed this work in order to do it in the pure way as prescribed by Marx,
i.e. waited until their country had achieved the industrial development level
of Germany or Britain in the 1870s–1880s, their proletariat had become the
immense majority of the population, and had also developed the right
revolutionary consciousness. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Already when I was a young student
and had read the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Communist Manifesto</i>,
I had some doubts on this point. It was wrong, I thought, to say “The
proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains.” In any revolution, every
revolutionary can lose her life or limbs. After a failed one, she can be
incarcerated and lose her livelihood; her dependents can descend into a state
of penury. To say that the proletariat (as a class) “have a world to win” is for
the average proletarian too abstract a promise of compensation for the said
concrete risks and sufferings. Only the inspired are willing to take them. It
is alright for a manifesto to contain such high-flown words, but it is better
to know that they do not correspond to the reality.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Also the sentence “The working men have no
country” was nothing more than an assertion in high-flown words. How
far-fetched, how unrealistic and hollow all these words were, was demonstrated
just 31 years after Marx’s death, when, in the 1st World War, the working men
of the advanced industrialized countries of Europe not only did not prevent the
war, but also, obeying their heads of state, readily went to the front to
fulfill their <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">patriotic duty</i>, namely
to kill the working men of their respective enemy countries. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even after socialists/communists had made
a revolution – alternatively, won a revolutionary antiimperialist war – and
took over power in Russia, China, Vietnam, and Cambodia, their armies, made up
of their working men of all kinds (few proletarians in the Marxian sense),
fought against one another, because of petty disputes (partly border disputes).
So far as I know, generations of Marxist theoreticians have failed to devote
enough attention to this aspect of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">human
nature</i>, which also socialist/communist idealists regularly fall victim to.
Only Lenin <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">may </i>have been aware of
this serious problem when he advocated the right of peoples to
self-determination. In spite of this history, even today as always, in all
countries, on the 1<sup>st</sup> May demonstrations and rallies, one can
observe socialists, communists, leftists mindlessly shouting vacuous slogans
like “workers of all countries unite”, “long live international solidarity”.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I think some people make a revolution – let us
modestly say they just revolt – when life under the prevailing conditions has
in some sense or another become unbearable – objectively and materially for the
broad masses, subjectively for highly sensitive (mostly) young people. Some of
them – like Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky etc. – are cool, intellectual and
analytical types, others, such as Mao, Fidel and Che, are more like daredevils.
They revolt irrespective of whether the time is ripe or not, irrespective of
whether the proletariat has understood its <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">world-historic
mission </i>or not, irrespective of whether the proletariat joins the revolt or
remains aloof. Mao led a communist revolution in an agrarian society, Che even
tried to bring revolution to Congo and Bolivia, where there was no working
class. Such people cannot just see exploitation and oppression happening and
sit idly by. <br />
<br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Revisionism<br />
<br />
</i></b>Till now, in highly developed industrial countries like Germany,
England etc., the working class has rejected the revolutionary role assigned to
them by Marx and Engels. In Germany, their party, the Social-Democratic Party
(SPD, founded in 1863–1875) pursued the reformist strategy advocated by
Bernstein. In 1959, it even accepted capitalist market economy in its new
program called the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Godesberg Program</i>.
In Britain, the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Labor Party</i>, formed
between 1893 and 1900, never explicitly accepted Marxism as its political
philosophy, but was for a long time regarded as a constitutional socialist
party in some sense. In the 1990s, however, it became an arch protagonist of
neoliberal capitalism.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It would be interesting to go deeper
into the question why, in Russia, in 1917ff, the relatively small proletariat
made the revolution together with soldiers of a demoralized army, while in
Germany, in the Autumn of 1918, the very large proletariat and soldiers of a
defeated army refused to heed the call for revolution (except in Munich,
Bavaria). This is not the right place for that enquiry. But a few words from
Kolakowski’s exposition on Bernstein’s revisionism can be quoted as a short
answer:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 35.4pt;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-language: DE; mso-themecolor: text1;">“When Bernstein started intervening,
the real wages of the German working class had risen for a long time, and it
had won numerous social security benefits and a shorter working day. ... Of
course, ... there was still no universal suffrage in Prussia, … but the
elections and the political mobilization as well as the relative power connected
with them offered the prospect of a successful struggle for the republic and
even assumption of power. … The real experience of the working class in no way
supported the [Marxist] theory according to which their situation within the
limits of capitalism was basically hopeless and not susceptible of
improvements. … The history of revisionism <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">does
not support the [Marxist] claim that there is a natural revolutionary attitude
in the working class</i> … that results from its very situation as a seller of
labor power and incurable victim in this system of alienation. ... The
traditional [Marxist] belief in the revolutionary mission of the proletariat
was put into question. ... Revisionism robbed the socialist doctrine of the
noble pathos of the 'final battle' and total liberation.”<sup>7</sup><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 35.4pt;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-language: DE; mso-themecolor: text1;"><sup><br /></sup></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoPlainText" style="text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Part II<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoPlainText" style="text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoPlainText" style="text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">How much Marxism has
gone into my Eco-Socialism?<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">As regards Marxian/Marxist theory, it is a bit difficult for me to
answer the question put above, because I have read only some, not all, of the
works of Marx and Engels. Much of my knowledge of their theory is based on
reading secondary literature written by well-known Marxists of earlier decades (Sweezy,
Mandel. Leontiev, Kolakowski, Vranicki etc.). I, moreover, never believed that
intelligent people and scholars of the twentieth century could not study and
understand the problems of their century without always asking what Marx had
exactly written about an issue. After all, the authors of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Limits to growth</i>,<sup>8</sup> such an important book for our
century,<sup> </sup>were not known for their Marx scholarship.<br />
<br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Agents
of Change?<br />
<br />
</i></b>The leaders of the previous revolutionary changes may or may not have come
from the ranks of revolutionary proletarians, but without a good leadership
overthrow of any capitalist, feudal, colonial or any other sort of
oppressive-exploitative regime would not have been possible. However, whether the
societies they built up thereafter could be called “socialist” has been a
disputed question, which I cannot take up here. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>People who have some knowledge of
history know what political role the “working class parties” (sometimes called
social-democratic, sometimes socialist) and their proletarian members have played
in the highly developed industrial countries as well as in the less developed
ones, such as India. Above, in part I, I have given a short pointer to that
role. What we read there applies all the more to the trade unions. Sometimes,
of course, they defied the wishes of the leadership of their respective
parties, but fighting against capitalism has never been at the top of their agenda.
In the developed world, they had already explicitly accepted capitalism,
calling the system a “social market economy” and their relationship with
capitalists “social partnership”. What they fought for has always been higher
wages, better conditions of work, and defending their existing jobs, in short,
for their own <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">private</i> and class
interests. Occasionally, in the past, in the recent past, and at the present,
even their national interest got top priority. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For me, all that means that today and
in the near future, we cannot really think of the proletariat as the chief
agent of any radical transformation of capitalist society into some kind of a
socialist one. For capitalism in the highly industrialized countries of Europe
and America is still capable of maintaining a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">superficially democratic</i> <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">form
</i>of governance with many freedoms and a standard of living of averagely skilled
workers that is many times higher than that of averagely skilled workers of
underdeveloped countries. It is no wonder then that at least in the USA, such
workers understand themselves, and are also understood by others, as members of
the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">middle class</i>. They have a strong
interest in defending this system.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Now, if we tell them that in a future
eco-socialist society, all, including skilled workers, will have to forgo many
of the comforts and privileges that they today take for granted, they will
curse us and wish to send us to hell. This has been my experience in Germany. Here,
workers and their trade unions have always been the strongest opponents of the
ecology movement. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The proletariat’s political behavior
in such countries may change if capitalism there loses the said capability,
e.g. in a crisis more severe than anything seen till today, a crisis of
whatever origin and kind. But in which direction they will then push society is
anyone’s guess. It may be in the revolutionary socialist direction, but it may also be in the
direction of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">fascism</i>.<br />
<br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Crises
and Collapse of Capitalism?<br />
<br />
</i></b>Once, between 1929 and 1933, modern capitalist economy faced a severe
crisis and stood on the verge of collapse. No society was then transformed into
a socialist one. But in one, fascists took over power. Now how probable is such
a crisis in our days, or in the foreseeable future?<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After Marx’s death, four Marxian or
Marxist crisis theories were in circulation. About two of them there has been
some doubt as to whether Marx himself propounded them or his followers
derived/developed them from his writings. The other two were creations of Marx
himself. <br />
<br />
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Breakdown theory<br />
<br />
</i>In vol. 3 of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Capital</i>, in a
passage on the process of centralization of capital, Marx wrote: “This process
would soon bring about the collapse of capitalist production … .”<sup>9</sup> But
this passage, according to Sweezy, is nothing more than a description of a
tendency, since Marx speaks in the same breath about “counteracting tendencies
which continually have a decentralizing effect by the side of the centripetal
ones” Nowhere else did Sweezy find in Marx’s works “a doctrine of the
specifically economic breakdown of capitalist production.” (ibid:192). However,
there is another longish passage in Capital, Vol. 3, which is worth noting in
this context. Marx writes:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainTextCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 35.4pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">“The <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">true barrier</i> to capitalist production is
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">capital itself</i>. It is that capital
and its self-valorization [i.e. getting returns and capital accumulation]
appear as the starting and finishing point, as the motive and purpose of
production; production is production only for capital, and not the reverse,
i.e. the means of production are not simply means for a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">steadily expanding</i> pattern of life for the society of the
producers. The barriers within which the maintenance and valorization of the
capital-value has necessarily to move – and this in turn depends on the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">dispossession and impoverishment</i> of the
great mass of the producers – therefore come constantly into contradiction with
the methods of production that capital must apply to its purpose and which set
its course towards an unlimited expansion of production, to production as an
end in itself, to an unrestricted development of the social productive powers
of labor. The means … comes into persistent conflict with the restricted end, …
. If the capitalist mode of production is therefore a historical means for
developing the material powers of production … , it is at the same time the
constant contradiction between this historical task and the social relations of
production [i.e. capitalist relations among members of society] corresponding
to it<sup>9a</sup> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainTextCxSpMiddle">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainTextCxSpMiddle">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Some Marx
scholars think that this key passage in Marx’s writings, which is his
quintessential characterization of capitalism, can be interpreted as a theory
of ultimate breakdown of the system. It has to be noted that Marx wrote it
while presenting and elaborating on his famous Law of the Tendential Fall in
the Rate of Profit. It is logically correct, I think, to conclude that if this law
is a secular tendency, which Marx insisted it was, then sooner or later the
rate of profit will fall to such a low level, that, for most capitalists, it
won’t any more be interesting to invest their money in industry – in spite of
all the “counteracting forces” that Marx also described. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Another point to be noted here is
that Marx enumerated among his counteracting forces “more intense exploitation
of labor”, “reduction of wages below their value” (possible because of
competition among workers) and generation of “the relative surplus population”
(i.e. unemployment). It is logical to conclude from this that Marx had a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Pauperization Theory</i>, that he thought
universal pauperization of the working people would also contribute to the
eventual breakdown of capitalism. In the passage quoted above, Marx himself
speaks of “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">dispossession and
impoverishment</i> of the great mass of the producers.” And pauperization
theory logically leads to an <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">under-consumption
theory</i>, which can also be called the (relative) <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">over-production theory </i><br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I cannot here again discuss these Marxian
and/or Marxist theories nor the criticisms thereof.<sup>10</sup> Suffice it to
say that the fact that 135 years after Marx’s death, capitalism has not broken
down yet, and the fact that, on the contrary, it has now conquered the whole
world, and even reconquered the lost territories – the USSR, Eastern Europe, China
and Vietnam,<sup>10a</sup> – should actually give rise to the conjecture that the
famous Law of the Tendential Fall in the Rate of Profit, the basis of all these
theories mentioned above, was itself <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">fundamentally
flawed</i>. I had this suspicion when I, as a young man, first read about this
law. I did not then dare express it. I thought I had not read enough. So I just
put a question mark on the margin of the book, and continued to live and work as
a socialist with this suspicion in the back of my head. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But several years later, when I read the late Paul Sweezy’s book on
Marxian economics, I found my suspicion confirmed. Sweezy, himself a famous
Marxist, had pointed out the flaw as early as in 1942. For lack of space, I
cannot here present his (and my) argumentation in detail. Just this: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainTextCxSpMiddle">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainTextCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 35.4pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">“Marx was hardly
justified, even in terms of his own theoretical system, in assuming a constant
rate of surplus value simultaneously with a rising organic composition of
capital.”<sup>11</sup><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainTextCxSpMiddle">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainTextCxSpMiddle">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In short,
the enormous gains in labor productivity that capitalist production achieved
and is today still achieving thanks to automation and the microelectronic
revolution have made it possible that, in the industrial countries, large-scale
impoverishment is today a thing of the past. At the most, one can today only
speak cautiously of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">relative
impoverishment.</i> These huge gains in labor productivity have allowed capital
to accept the higher wage demands of workers and enabled the state to be
generous to the unemployed and the unemployable. That these gains went hand in
hand with losses in the sphere of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">ecological
balance</i> was known, also to Marx and Engels. But that is another matter.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If and when Marx’s prediction comes true,
i.e. capitalism breaks down because of its inner contradictions, and if we, for
the sake of argument, ignore the ecological and resource-related crises, then <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Schumpeter</i> takes over with his theory of
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">creative destruction</i>.<sup>12 </sup>That
is what happened in the 1930s, and again in 2008ff.<br />
<br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Is
the Situation Today Ripe for Socialism? Limits to Growth.<br />
</i></b><br />
When the great financial crash of 2008 led to the Great Recession and another
Great Depression, many Marxist leftists thought this could be the final crisis
of capitalism. Others thought Marx was right after all. A renewed interest in
reading <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Capital</i> was observed. Ten
years after 2008, I feel like quoting Schumpeter. In 1943, he wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainTextCxSpMiddle">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left: 35.4pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">“The capitalist or any other
order of things may evidently break down – or economic and social evolution may
outgrow it – and yet the socialist phoenix may fail to rise from the ashes.<sup>13</sup><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainTextCxSpLast">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainTextCxSpLast">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Great
Depression of 2008ff did not prove Marx right, but, once more, Bernstein. As
during the Great Depression of the 1930s, this time too, the proletariat of the
highly industrialized countries failed to deliver. Even those of the worst-hit
countries like the USA, Greece, Spain and Italy<sup>14</sup> did not make any
move whatsoever to overthrow capitalism. Today, in such countries, capitalism
is of course not thriving, but it is also not dead. Marx, it seems, was totally
wrong in writing that “the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">true barrier</i>
to capitalist production is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">capital
itself</i>.” Is then capitalism an immortal system?<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It may not be so, because in the
meantime, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">a new barrier</i> has been
discovered, namely <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">limits to growth</i>,
which, if translated into Marxist jargon, would read limits to accumulation,
limits to capitalist production. And these limits are – unlike Marx’s idea that
capital itself is the true barrier – not a mere theoretical construct. They are
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">concrete</i> and tangible limits to the carrying
capacity of the earth: (1) limits to the availability of cheap renewable and nonrenewable
resources needed for industrial production, (2) limits to the capacity of our natural
environment to absorb or, alternatively, neutralize pollutants produced by us
humans such as CO<sub>2</sub> (the Earth’s sink function), and (3) limits to
the number of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">modern</i> humans that can
live on the earth without ruining the ecological balance of its biosphere. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, they are not only a barrier
to <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">capitalist</i> production, but to <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">any kind of</i> <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">industrial production</i>, also of the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">socialist</i> kind. And all environmentally conscious humans, I presume,
know of reports by serious scientists that say we have already overshot many of
these limits.<sup>14a</sup> And journalistic reports show that many of today’s human
societies have already collapsed, that many others are fast approaching
collapse: Somalia, Central African Republic, Greece, Bolivia, Mexico Venezuela etc.
<br />
<br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Prospects
for Eco-Socialism<br />
<br />
</i></b>After reading the book<sup> </sup><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Limits
to growth </i><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">(1972)</span> I realized that this discovery was of an import to economics, politics
and socio-economic policy comparable to that of the Copernican discovery of the
heliocentric movement of the planets. Like the latter, it demanded of us a
wholesale <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">paradigm shift</i>, namely from
the until then prevailing <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">growth paradigm</i>
to what I call the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">limits-to-growth
paradigm.</i><sup>15 </sup>The thought occurred to me that limits to growth may
be the real and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">ultimate barrier</i> that
will cause the breakdown of capitalism. It later enabled me to come to a
different and better understanding of the causes of the breakdown of the Soviet
model of socialism.<sup>16</sup> It meant for me that we must now bid farewell
to development of productive forces as well as to economic growth and
concentrate our efforts on economic and ecological sustainability, which would
require <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">economic contraction</i> in (at
least) the highly industrialized countries.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Here I also saw a new kind of<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> necessity</i> and justification for
socialism: A socialist society, because it would be egalitarian, would be an
ethically better one and hence more desirable. And only such a society, because
it would be planned, could guarantee that no person of working age would go
without a gainful employment, even in a contracting economy. And only such a
socialist society can guarantee that the job an employed person would be doing would
also be a socially useful work. Only in such a society would it be possible
that working people would accept policies designed for deliberately reducing
production and consumption, for saving the earth. This new conception of
socialism should be called, I thought, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">eco-socialism.<br />
</i></span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Marx and Engels had known a lot about the
ecological problems and damages that arise from capitalism (actually from <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">industrialism </i>of any kind). But because they
did not see any limits to development of productive forces, they did not take
them seriously for their own vision of socialism. Engels expressly wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainTextCxSpLast">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 35.4pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">“… after the mighty
advances made by the natural sciences in the present century, we are more than
ever in a position to realize and hence to <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">control
even the more remote natural consequences</i> of at least our day today
production activities.”<sup>17</sup> (emphasis added)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This defect in their theory was also noted
by Ted Benton,<sup>18</sup> a famous Marx scholar, who, in connection with the hostile
attitude of Marx and Engels toward Malthus and his law of population, writes of
a<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 35.4pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">“… defect in Marx’s
economic thought” … which “derives, rather, from an insufficiently radical
critique of the leading exponents of Classical Political Economy. … It is
plausible to see this failure as in part due to a mystificatory feature of
capitalist economic life itself, but it is also connected with a general, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">politically understandable</i>, reluctance
on the part of Marx and Engels to recognize <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">nature-imposed
limits to human potential</i> in general, and to the creation of wealth in
particular. …” <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">For
political reasons</i>, … Marx and Engels were strongly, and understandably, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">predisposed against ‘natural-limits’
arguments</i>, ….”.(emphases added)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainTextCxSpFirst">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainTextCxSpFirst">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However much
understanding one might have had up to 1972 for this <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">politically motivated</i> attitude of Marx and Engels, today, the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Marxist conception</i> of socialism based on
stubborn <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">refusal to recognize unpleasant
realities</i> must be regarded as obsolete.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While working on my book on eco-socialism, I
was very surprised to find, that Mahatma Gandhi, who was neither known for scholarship
nor for scientific thinking, needed only common sense to come, in 1928, to the
conclusion for which scholars and scientists needed to wait until 1972. He
wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainTextCxSpFirst">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainTextCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 35.4pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">“The economic
imperialism of a single tiny island kingdom [Britain] is today keeping the
world in chains. If an entire nation of 300 million took to similar economic
exploitation, it would strip the world bare like locusts.”<sup>19</sup><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainTextCxSpLast">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainTextCxSpLast">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yet, it was
Marx from whom I got the clue to the theoretical thought that <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">eco-socialism</i> might succeed where earlier
socialisms based more or less on his and Engels’s theory failed. </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Marx wrote in his preface to <i>A
Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy</i>:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainTextCxSpLast">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-left: 35.4pt;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: DE; mso-themecolor: text1;">“No social order ever perishes before all the
productive forces for which there is room in it have developed; and new higher
relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their
existence have matured in the womb of the old society itself. Therefore,
mankind always sets itself only such tasks as it can solve; since … it will
always be found that the task itself arises only when the material conditions
for its solution already exist or are at least in the process of formation.”<sup>20</sup></span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: DE; mso-themecolor: text1;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainTextCxSpFirst">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainTextCxSpFirst">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I
interpreted the quote as follows: The capitalist social order has not perished
yet because until now, there has been enough room in it for all the productive
forces to develop. Today, however, this issue is irrelevant. For against the
background of the global ecological crisis and rapidly dwindling resources, the
global economy, especially the advanced industrial economies, must <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">contract </i>to a sustainable level. That is
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">the task today</i>. Technologically, its
solution is easy. There is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">no need to
develop new technologies</i>. But there is a political need to <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">conceive </i>(which is difficult)<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> new relations of production</i> that would allow,
indeed facilitate, the fulfilment of this task. One such conception is there.
It is called <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">eco-socialism. </i>It has
already matured as a conception in the womb of existing society.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At this point comes up the question whether this
interpretation of mine is at all in consonance with the original quotation,
which expresses one of the main points of the theory of history of Marx and
Engels. It is, obviously, not. Marxists have always maintained that private capitalism
has become a fetter to the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">development of
productive forces</i> and that the fetter must be shattered. Take, for instance.
the following two quotes from <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Principles
of Communism</i>, an early work of Engels:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainTextCxSpFirst">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainTextCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 35.4pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">“<span style="background: white;">It is clear that, up to now, the forces of production
have never been developed to the point where enough could be developed [produced?]
for all, and that private property [i.e. capitalism] has become a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">fetter </i>and a barrier in relation to the
further development of the forces of production.” <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainTextCxSpMiddle">
<span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">And <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainTextCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 35.4pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">“</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">… though big industry
[large-scale industry] in its earliest stage created free competition, it has
now outgrown free competition; … for big industry, competition and generally
the individualistic organization of production have become a fetter which it
must and will <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">shatter</i>;”<sup>21</sup>
(emphases added)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainTextCxSpMiddle">
<span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainTextCxSpMiddle">
<span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">But now we are saying the forces of
production have developed so much that they have become destructive for the
environment as well as for humans; so, today, they must be fettered and thus <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">prevented </i>from developing further.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I would like to express this inconsonance
with Marx and Engels through a beautiful quote from Walter Benjamin, a famous
Marxist literary critique of the 1930s, who, in a different critical political situation,
wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainTextCxSpMiddle">
<span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainTextCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 35.4pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">“Marx
says revolutions are the locomotives of world history. But perhaps it is entirely
different. Revolutions are perhaps the attempt of humanity travelling in a train
to pull the emergency brake.”<sup>22</sup></span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainTextCxSpMiddle">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainTextCxSpMiddle">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Today, only
eco-socialism can <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">actively pull</i> the
emergency brakes to stop the destructive course of the locomotive of
industrialism. For this task, however, the proletariat is not the right agent.
Proletarians are trained to and want to drive locomotives, and drive them as fast
as possible. Their vision, if it is at all a kind of socialism, is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">cornucopian</i> socialism. Erich Fromm, the
famous social psychologist, who also admired Marx very much, thought that today
there are “only two camps: those who care and those who don’t care.”<sup>23</sup>
I agree.<br />
<br />
Today, humanity has come to a point where Marxist theory of history has reached the
end of its tether, and another theory of history takes over, that of Arnold Toynbee.<sup>24</sup>
When <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">collapse</i> of the<s> </s>current civilization
stares us in the face, the issue is not whether or how we can farther develop
the forces of production, but whether we can meet the various <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">challenges </i>we are facing and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">transform</i>, through contraction, our civilization
into a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">sustainable</i> one. I think with
eco-socialism that is possible, but not with Marxian/Marxist socialism with its
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Promethean productivism.<br />
</i><br />
<br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Notes
and References<o:p></o:p></i></b></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainTextCxSpMiddle">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><br /></i></b></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainTextCxSpMiddle">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">1. Marx: <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Theses
on Feuerbach</i>. In Marx-Engels: <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Selected
Works</i>. Vol.1.Moscow 1977. P.15.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainTextCxSpMiddle">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">2. These were the show trials, in which several top
leaders of the CPSU (B), such as</span><br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> Zinoviev, Kamenev, Radek, Bukharin etc. were found guilty of treason, sentenced to death,
and subsequently executed. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainTextCxSpMiddle">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">3. Chattopadhyay, Paresh: “</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">A
Brief Note on Subrata Bagchi’s write up “Che Guevara …..”.</span><br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Frontier</i>, 14.07.2014. Kolkata.
(emphases added) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainTextCxSpMiddle">
<s><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">4. </span></s><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">(not used)<s><o:p></o:p></s></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainTextCxSpMiddle">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">5. Marx and Engels: <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Holy Family,</i> in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Collected
Works</i>, Vol. 4. </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">1975, Moscow. P.37.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainTextCxSpMiddle">
<s><span style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">6</span></s><span style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">. (not used)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainTextCxSpMiddle">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">7. Kolakowski, Leszek (1978/81) <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Die Hauptströmungen des Marxismus.</i> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Vol.2. Munich.</span><br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> P. 133f. (Tr. SS).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainTextCxSpMiddle">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">8. Meadows, Donella and Dennis et al.: <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Limits to Growth – Report to the Club of
Rome</i>. <br />
London.1972.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">9. Quoted in Sweezy, Paul M (1942) <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The
Theory of Capitalist Development</i>. New York: P.191.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainTextCxSpMiddle">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">9a. Marx: <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Capital
Vol.3</i>; translated by Fernbach. Penguin. P. 358f.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainTextCxSpMiddle">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">10. I have done that in my book <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Crises of Capitalism</i>. Berkeley, 2012.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainTextCxSpMiddle">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">10a. See my article on Vietnam’s return to capitalism:
<br />
</span><a href="https://eco-socialist.blogspot.com/search?q=Vietnam"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">https://eco-socialist.blogspot.com/search?q=Vietnam</span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainTextCxSpMiddle">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">11. Sweezy (see note 9), P. 102.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">12. See Schumpeter; Joseph Alois (1912/1934) <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Theory of Economic Development</i>.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Cambridge, MA. USA. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><o:p></o:p></i></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">13. Schumpeter, Joseph Alois (1943) <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Capitalism,
Socialism, and Democracy.</i> London<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">. </i>P.
56f.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<h3 style="background: white; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12.0pt; font-weight: normal;">14. See my essay <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Understanding the Present-day World Economic
Crisis – An </i></span></h3>
<h3 style="background: white; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12.0pt; font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Eco-Socialist<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Approach<br />
</i></span><a href="https://eco-socialist.blogspot.com/search?q=understanding"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12.0pt;">https://eco-socialist.blogspot.com/search?q=understanding</span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></h3>
<div class="MsoPlainTextCxSpFirst">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">14a. William Rees has recently published a good
summary of the ecological state of the world:<br />
</span><a href="https://countercurrents.org/2018/08/17/what-me-worry-humans-are-blind-to-imminent-environmental-collapse/"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">https://countercurrents.org/2018/08/17/what-me-worry-humans-are-blind-to-imminent-environmental-collapse/</span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainTextCxSpMiddle">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">15. See Kuhn, Thomas (1962) <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Structure of Scientific Revolutions</i>. Chicago.</span><br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">I used and explained the terms in my book<br />
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Eco-Socialism or Eco-Capitalism? – A
Critical Analysis of Humanities Fundamental </i></span><br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Choices. </i>London (Zed Books). 1999.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainTextCxSpMiddle">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">16. See Chapter 2 and 3 of my above mentioned book
(note 15).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">17. <span style="background: white;">Marx & Engels (1976) <i>Selected
Works </i>(in 3 Volumes) Vol. 3. Moscow.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">18. Benton, Ted: “<span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">Marxism and Natural Limits: An Ecological
Critique and Reconstruction”, in <br />
<i>New Left Review</i>, I_178, Nov–Dec. 1989.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainTextCxSpFirst">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">19. Gandhi, Mahatma, quoted in<br />
Bandyopadhyay, Jayanta and Vandana Shiva (1989) “Political Economy of Ecology <br />
Movements”, in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Ifda dossier </i>71,
May/June<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">.</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainTextCxSpMiddle">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">20. Marx: Preface to </span><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy</span></i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">. In </span><br />
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Marx-Engels: <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Selected Works</i>, Vol. 1. Moscow. 1977.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainTextCxSpMiddle">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">21. Engels: <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Principles
of Communism</i> : Quoted from the internet: <br />
</span><a href="https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm</span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainTextCxSpMiddle">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">22. Benjamin, Walter<span style="background: white;"> , quoted in <br />
Fetcher, Iring (1980) <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Überlebensbedingungen
der Menschheit</i>. </span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Munich.P. 8).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainTextCxSpMiddle">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">23. Fromm, Erich (1979) <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">To Have or to Be</i>. London.P.196.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainTextCxSpLast">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">24. Toynbee, Arnold is the author of the monumental
work <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">A Study of History</i>. (I have </span><br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">not
read the 12 volumes, but some articles on his theory of history.)<br />
<br />
6811 words<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span>
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Note: The essay was first published in the online journal Radical Ecological Democracy</span><br />
<div>
<br />
</div>
<div>
<a href="http://www.radicalecologicaldemocracy.org/redweb-anniversary-series-from-socialism-to-eco-socialism-turning-points-on-a-personal-journey-through-the-marxist-theory-of-socialism/" moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.radicalecologicaldemocracy.org/redweb-anniversary-series-from-socialism-to-eco-socialism-turning-points-on-a-personal-journey-through-the-marxist-theory-of-socialism/</a><br />
</div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">
</span><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
<br />Saral Sarkarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14801618107395376433noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4729735685376119377.post-92124361167829248372018-08-06T03:14:00.000-07:002018-08-07T00:27:37.278-07:00Ted Trainer's Eco-Anarchist Vision 2030 - 2050. --- It is Too Utopian<br />
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst" style="line-height: normal;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Dear
friends,<br />
<br />
My good friend Ted Trainer, a professed eco-anarchist, has recently published a
very interesting <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">fictitious</i> Interview
entitled <br />
<br />
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: red;">How the Great
Transition was Made<br />
<br />
</span></i><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In it he describes how the
transition to an ideal eco-anarchist society took place between 2030, when the
Great Crash began, and 2050, when the transition was more or less completed.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I found his vision utopian in the
negative sense of the term and suggested that we had better start working on a “soft
landing” after the Great Crash, that would certainly come.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I am posting here the link to Ted’s fictitious
interview and then my criticism of his vision. Please read Ted’s interview
first.<br />
<br />
Here is the link:<br />
<a href="https://www.resilience.org/stories/2018-07-18/how-the-great-transition-was-made/">https://www.resilience.org/stories/2018-07-18/how-the-great-transition-was-made/</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;"><br />
Ted Trainer’s Eco-Anarchist Vision 2030–2050. – It is too Utopian<br />
</span><br />
(a letter to Ted)<br />
<br />
24.07.2018<br />
<br />
Dear Ted,<br />
<br />
I read your article <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">How the Great
Transition Was Made </i>with interest. Good that you are still so hopeful. I
have lost all hope. If I am still writing, it is only because I still can. And
because I want to do my duty. In the latter sense, allow me to make a few
comments. I will not repeat my arguments on anarchism vs. strong state/leadership
etc.<br />
<br />
(1).You are counting on the Great Depression of the 2030, and then you hope
that within twenty years, <span style="color: red;">people </span>would transform
capitalist society into a model eco-anarchist one corresponding to your vision.
But such great depressions took place earlier, in the 1930s and 2008ff. In both
cases, nothing happened in Europe and North America. In the first case, it is
only the Second World War that helped overcome the depression. Of course, in
those days nobody could imagine limits to growth and resource shortages. But in
the second case, everybody of importance in politics and economics new about
it. Peak oil and oil price of 140 Dollar were realities. Yet nothing happened.
Not even in Greece. The country was offered the possibility of “walking out”
(your words) of the Euro-zone; Euro-leaders even offered them financial help
for the process. But neither the Greek politicians, nor the Greek people were
willing to walk out. They even decided in a referendum to remain and suffer in
the system. So much for “people”.<br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #010101; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br />
(2) </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #010101; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE;">You are writing
about the whole world, the whole humanity. But it seems to me that </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE; mso-themecolor: text1;">you have in mind only
the highly advanced countries of Europe, North America, Australia (The First
World), and maybe also China and India, where there are many factories etc. It
appears you have not considered the situation in the whole continent of Africa,
many states of which have de facto </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE;">already broken
down</span></i></b><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE; mso-themecolor: text1;">, have become (or are in the process of becoming) failed states. Also in
South and Central America (Mexico, Colombia, Venezuela, Honduras, Guatemala,
Brazil), in South Asia (Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan), and in the Middle
East and North Africa (Syria, Iraq, Libya, Tunisia etc.), states and/or
societies </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE;">are breaking down</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE; mso-themecolor: text1;">. Millions of desperate
people/migrants/refugees from such countries are trying to gate-crash into the First
World. There are also unwanted migrants from some countries of Europe (e.g.
Poland, Balkan countries) into Western Europe, where </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE;">fascism</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE; mso-themecolor: text1;"> has already raised its head again and is
becoming stronger with every passing day. Violent attacks and insults are
taking place there against unwanted migrants, </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE;">especially in the small towns. <br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #010101; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>All
such things have been happening for quite a few years/decades now. In the 12
years that remain till 2030, the situation would only worsen. And you are
thinking that citizens of the First World would, after the great crash and
onset of the Great Depression, start building your ideal basis-democratic, egalitarian,
anarchist society! This is </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE;">utopian</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #010101; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE;"> in the negative sense of the term. I am afraid,
then all hell will break out.<br />
<br />
(3) The main (but not the only) cause of this development is </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE;">overpopulation relative to the resources</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #010101; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE;">, which are dwindling. You have not included it
in your list of main causes. Only in the context of dwindling Middle East oil
supply you mention the problem once, and write: “because their </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE; mso-themecolor: text1;">… increasing populations
and declining water … and food production </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #010101; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE;">meant … they had to use more and more of the oil
they produced.” But population explosion is taking place all over the world
except in the First World. Let me again quote </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE;">Paul Ehrlich</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #010101; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE;">. Addressing the good people of the world, he
wrote: “Whatever [be] your cause, it is a lost cause unless we control
population [growth]”. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE;">Marx,</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #010101; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE;"> at least in this particular respect, was indeed wrong. He (also Engels, Lenin et al.) rejected stubbornly the obvious truth
that Malthus had already discovered in the 18<sup>th</sup> century. <br />
<br />
(4) Against the background of the situation described above, </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE;">community </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #010101; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE;">consciousness </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE; mso-themecolor: text1;">is evaporating. Remember what
Margaret Thatcher once said?</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE;"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE; mso-themecolor: text1;">She said, </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE;">“there is no such thing as society, there are
only individuals</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE; mso-themecolor: text1;">.” When the great crash takes place in 2030, you expect <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">people</i></b>
(not a few leaders/intellectuals) to “realize” (your word) immediately, and
then quickly in the next 20 years, what they never realized before. I fear, most
people – like those in Africa today – would then think like being on a sinking
ship . They would then say “</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE;">Everyone for
himself</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE; mso-themecolor: text1;">” or “</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE;">save yourself if
you can!”</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #010101; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE;"> <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How can you expect that in the
coming12 years, the sense of solidarity, frugality, community consciousness
etc., all the virtues that you perhaps, wrongly, assume to be still existing in
the world, will remain intact in 2030? And after that? <br />
<br />
Let me come to a close. The crash will come. That is certain. But I do not want
to speculate on what will happen </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE;">then</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE;">,</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #010101; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE;"> or what the “citizens” would or could do then. I would rather think about
what we, the citizens, could do </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE;">before</span></i></b><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #010101; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE;"> the crash comes. (I have written about that to
some of my friends, including yourself, Johny and Steve, 2-3 years ago.). We
have just 12 years left. So let us try to utilize the time preparing the world
for a “</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE;">soft landing</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #010101; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE;">”. And if we have a little good luck, who knows,
a better society may in the long run emerge out of the turmoil. Let us keep it
open how that may look like. It <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">may</i>
look like your ideal eco-anarchist society. But I would not bet on that.<br />
<br />
With warm regards<br />
<br />
Saral<br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[endif]--></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />Saral Sarkarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14801618107395376433noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4729735685376119377.post-73261098185153541532018-06-13T12:25:00.000-07:002018-06-13T12:25:36.691-07:00Varieties of Eco-Socialism: Comparing the Thought of John Bellamy Foster With Saral Sarkar's<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE;">Some of you might be
interested in an essay I wrote for the Simplicity Institute, title <a href="http://simplicityinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Varieties-of-Eco-Socialism-Simplicity-Institute-1.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">'<b>Varieties of Eco-Socialism:
Comparing the thought of John Bellamy Foster with Saral Sarkar</b>".</span></a>
The impetus for the essay was an online debate between these two prominent
eco-socialists last year. It struck me how divergent their views were, despite
the common label they attach to their views. My essay is an attempt to explore
and draw out those differences, in order to aid further discussion and debate
within the eco-socialist (and broader) camp.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE;"><a href="http://simplicityinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Varieties-of-Eco-Socialism-Simplicity-Institute-1.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">http://simplicityinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Varieties-of-Eco-Socialism-Simplicity-Institute-1.pdf</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE;">Feel free to forward to anyone
who may be interested. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Jonathan<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />Saral Sarkarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14801618107395376433noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4729735685376119377.post-28175332428041965612018-04-17T13:58:00.001-07:002018-04-22T00:33:26.342-07:00The Green Party of Germany -- From Beacon of Hope to a Bog-Standard Party<br />
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: DE;">Of late, given the troubling international environmental scenario, eco-activists
all over the world have been wondering whether attempts should be made in more
countries, particularly in the developing world, to form green parties. My advice
to them is: do not hurry. No serious discussion has taken place, yet.
However, just a few weeks ago, Pallav Das, editor of the RED website, requested
me to write a contribution to the discussion on the basis of my study of and experience
in the Green Party of Germany. The following text is the result of my trying to
fulfil that request. I hope it would be useful for colleagues and readers of
the RED website.<br />
<br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Theory
Deficits and Programmatic Contradictions<br />
<br />
</i></b>Already in my first year (1982) as an activist of the Green-alternative
movement and a member of the Green Party, I found that the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">majority</i> of their activists and members, and those leading persons
whom I came to know, were rather unaware of the basic theoretical reasoning
behind the compelling necessity of a green party: It was the fact that there
are <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">limits to growth</i>, and that no
established party was paying heed to it. I found that the majority had not even
read the basic literature on this subject, e.g. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Limits to Growth</i> by Meadows et al., <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Ein Planet wird geplündert</i> (a planet is being plundered) by Herbert
Gruhl, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Weltniveau – In der Sackgasse des
Industriesystems</i> (World Level – in the blind alley of the industrial
system), by Otto Ullrich, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Kommunismus
ohne Wachstum</i> (communism without growth) by Wolfgang Harich. These works
were published in the 1970s. They had also sold very well. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Green Party was founded in 1980,
and the first members joined in the two years thereafter. But they were not
really motivated by the discovery of the limits to growth. The majority of the
early members were mainly disgruntled members of the established parties and
cadres of the numerous small communist parties and groups. The <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">main </i>reason for their disgruntlement
was, firstly, the failure of the antinuclear energy movement (hereafter,
ANE-movement), in which many of them were very active, to persuade the German
government to renounce nuclear energy, and, secondly, the failure of the peace
movement to dissuade the government from deploying new middle range nukes aimed
at the USSR. Their opposition to nuclear energy was due to the dangers that
were associated with it. Among the founders and early members were also some
sincere ecologists, but they were a small <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">minority</i>.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This was before the Chernobyl
catastrophe (1986), which confirmed all the fears of the Greens and the
ANE-movement . Thereafter, their sympathizers along with about 50 percent of
the German population started to vehemently demand decommissioning of all
nuclear power plants. When the ruling parties retorted, “Do you want the lights
to go off?”, they could not give a convincing reply, for, in the meantime, they
had also become aware of the worsening of the CO<sub>2</sub>-related warming
problem, which is why they were opposing lignite mining. Or they replied that
all nuclear power plants could be replaced with gas-fired power plants, which
emit much less CO<sub>2 </sub>than coal-fired ones, and that gas could be
imported from the USSR. This was rejected by the ruling parties.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I criticized the proposed solution as
follows: Nuclear energy is dangerous, but it is dangerous everywhere including
in the USSR. So why should we want the Soviets to export their gas to the
Germans instead of using it for replacing all their own nuclear power plants? I
did not get any proper reply to my question. In all these discussions, no Green
leader said that the Germans must then simply reduce their energy consumption,
although both in the programs of the forerunner organizations and in the party
program there have also been statements against economic growth.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A similar drama was repeated in 2011
after the Fukushima catastrophe – with the difference that this time, rapid
expansion of so-called “clean” and “renewable” energy technologies were advocated
as replacement for nuclear energy, and the government accepted the proposal.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But also in respect of the
“renewable” energies, they are unaware of the many doubts (which I share) about
the usefulness and viability of solar and wind energy technologies that have
been expressed by many including some renowned scientists and economists, such
as James Lovelock and Nicholas Georgescu-Roegan.<sup>1</sup> If such doubts can
be ignored, then, of course, everything can go on as before. But can they be
ignored?<sup>2</sup> <br />
<br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The
Melon Character of the Green Party<br />
<br />
</i></b>It is not for nothing that the Green Party was often ridiculed as the
“Melon party” – outwardly green, but inside red. Sometimes it was also
described as a tomato – in the beginning green, but later red. For example, in
the program of one of its precursor organizations called <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Green Action for the Future</i>, one reads inter alia:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 35.4pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: DE;">“The
untenable ideology of growth is in the process of breaking down … . The present
efforts to achieve economic growth by force will aggravate the crisis and will
lead to a much greater catastrophe.”<sup>3<o:p></o:p></sup></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: DE;">It was an anti-materialistic, radical ecological program , but it
threatened to cause job losses. It generated a lot of antipathy among working
class people, who already felt threatened by the ANE movement.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Bunte Liste</i> (Chequered List) of Hamburg, one of its leftist
precursor groups, however, felt called upon primarily to defend and promote the
interests of the working class and its already achieved prosperity. In their
program, one finds, for example sentences like the following:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 35.4pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: DE;">“We do not
want destruction of jobs through nuclear energy and excessive rationalization. …We
want more money for our children and adolescents. Schools that children can
enjoy, playgrounds, kindergartens, youth centers, and training opportunities.”<sup>4</sup>
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: DE;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This stark contradiction between
the two groups’ programs was glossed over when the Green Party was founded.
There was a strong desire on both sides to found the party, because without
this unity, neither the radical ecologists nor the radical leftists had any
chance of winning some seats in the elections. So compromise formulations were
found, <span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;">which were facilitated by
the advent of new technologies, including solar and wind energy technologies</span>.
In their first program, on the crucial question of economic growth, the Greens
wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 35.4pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: DE;">“We are
fundamentally against every <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">quantitative</i>
growth. … But we are for <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">qualitative </i>growth,
[i.e.] <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">if</i> it is possible with the
same or less use of energy and with the same or less use of raw materials.”<sup>5<o:p></o:p></sup></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: DE;">The question whether qualitative growth in this sense was at all possible, and
if possible, what that would mean for income and standard of living of Germans,
was conveniently left undiscussed. In this vein remained unexamined was also
the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">economic soundness</i> of the
advocacy of solar and wind energy, which, as the Bunte Liste, Hamburg,
correctly asserted, “create [i.e. require] eight times more jobs [i.e. labor
cost] than nuclear energy.” <br />
<br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;">A Programmatic Synthesis Would Have
been Possible<br />
<br />
</span></i></b>This kind of fudging in programmatic and policy statements,
which had made cohabitation of radical ecological and radical leftist forces
possible, could only go on for some time. Soon after the birth of the party,
however, radical ecologists found that they had no influence in the party, that
radical leftists, who were more numerous in the party committees, were
systematically ignoring some of their fundamental positions, such as those
expressed in the following sentences:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 35.4pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: DE;">“Truthful
enlightenment must replace <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">untenable
promises</i>, which only strengthen the materialist <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">habit of making ever more demands</i> – demands that <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">cannot be fulfilled on a finite and
overcrowded earth</i>. It is no longer possible to make maximum promises to one
section of the people after the other.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 35.4pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: DE;">…………<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 35.4pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: DE;">“Everything <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">must become simpler</i>: the human being,
administration, technology, traffic. Only then shall we have more freedom, less
compulsive consumption, less performance terror, and with it less stress,
neurosis, and other sufferings.”<sup>6</sup> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: DE;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These fundamental positions were
obviously contradictory to the fundamental positions of the radical leftists
with their Marxist theories, with their total faith in and allegiance to the
working class and their trade unions. When conflicts arising from this
contradiction became unavoidable, the radical ecologists started refusing to
accept majority decisions.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yet, even in proper Marxist
philosophical sense, these conflicts could have been resolved. Out of the contradiction
between the old socialist <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">thesis</i> of
the necessity of development of productive forces and the radical ecological <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">antithesis</i> of its impossibility without
ruining the environment (hence its undesirability), a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">synthesis</i> could have arisen if the leading people of the two major
wings of the party opposing each other would have thought deeply about their
respective positions. After all, one independent theoretical leader of the
formation period of the Green Party, Rudolf Bahro, had already loudly proclaimed:
“Red and green, Green and Red go well together.” <sup>7<br />
</sup><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Theoretical seeds of such a
synthesis already existed in the works cited above. Harich’s book <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Communism without Growth </i>hinted at this
possibility. Ullrich’s new conception of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">socialism</i>
presented in the following two quotes cleared the debris of old thought from
the path to that synthesis. Ullrich wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 35.4pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: DE;">“Socialism
is a question of social constitution, of relations of humans to each other. It
is unnecessary … even fatal to connect this question [as Marxists do] with an
undefinable minimum technological and organizational development of equipment
of work.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: DE;">And<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 35.4pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: DE;">“There is no
lower limit of ‘development of productive forces’ below which socialism is
impossible, but there is an <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">upper </i>limit.
The level of industrialization that has been reached today by the FRG [Federal
Republic of Germany] and the GDR [German Democratic Republic] is creating, via
technology, a social structure which by itself makes a socialist relationship
between humans impossible.” <sup>8<o:p></o:p></sup></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: DE;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For those not conversant with
Marxist political philosophy, the two quotes can be translated into plain
English as follows: Socialism is possible even in a technologically and
organizationally “underdeveloped” society. And, secondly, in highly industrialized
societies, production and distribution processes become so complex that
relations of humans to each other cannot be(come) socialistic. <br />
<br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The
Green Party Lost Its Way<br />
<br />
</i></b>But the synthesis did not arise. I am sure, at least some of the
leaders of the Marxist-leftist wing had read the two books of Harich and
Ullrich. I knew them, they were intellectually aware enough to understand the
challenge that the latter posed to their received traditional conception of
socialism. But, I think, they did not have <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">the
courage</i> to reject such a fundamental tenet of Marxist socialism that Harich
and Ullrich were in effect demanding of them. <br />
<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There may also have been some other
reasons for that. Firstly, the new technologies like solar and wind energy,
recycling technologies etc. and the expectation of more to come, may have given
them the hope, as it did to many others, that the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">conflict between economy and ecology</i> could after all be overcome.
How false this hope has been could not be surmised in 1979–80, although
Georgescu-Roegen had published his doubts already in 1971,<sup>9</sup> and
although the inexorable entropy law had become known among the reading public
of Germany through the German translation of Jeremy Rifkin’s book on the
subject.<sup>10<br />
</sup><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A second factor that played a
strong role has been the usual <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">inertia of
thought </i>observable in the general public. I could also observe it among
large numbers of members of the Green Party and among the activists of the
Green-alternative movement. Their resistance to any thought of an unresolvable
contradiction between ecology and economy of the current type was expressed in
simple arguments like “If scientific and technological development could land
man on the moon, why shouldn’t it be able to resolve this contradiction?”<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I once offered to deal with this
question in a workshop. But already on the second day, a participant said:
“That is too much theory. I do not like theory. We need action.” My riposte – “But
with wrong theory and wrong analysis you may engage in wrong action” – was of
no avail. The workshop was discontinued. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Another argument I sometimes heard,
especially from leftists, was that one should not trust the Club of Rome,
because Aurelio Peccei, its president, was a big capitalist. Similarly, they
simply did not like the radical ecologists, because many of the latter, e.g.
Herbert Gruhl and Baldur Springmann, came from a conservative background. They
even disliked Rudolf Bahro, who, before he became a radical ecologist, was a
renowned communist and had been exiled from his native country GDR for trying
to reform traditional communism. Their more radical comrades outside the Green
Party later branded him as a rightist.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A third reason was that it might not
have helped at all even if some left leaders had accepted the arguments of the
radical ecologists. Their <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">dogmatic</i>
followers and comrades simply would not have listened to them. For, in the
meantime, under the influence of anarchists, a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">culture of rejecting and defying any leadership</i>, euphemistically
called <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">basis democracy</i>, had become
widespread both in the movement and in the Party.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For their part, also value-conservative
radical ecologists were too rigid. They refused to make any <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">ideological</i> compromise with socialism,
the ideology of the leftists, with whom they had made a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">practical</i> compromise. One may ask, why then did they, the two
wings, who actually were adversaries, at all join hands to found this party? It
was <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">a big mistake</i>. If I had been
there at that time, I would have asked Herbert Gruhl, the leader of the
value-conservative radical ecologists:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 35.4pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: DE;">Do you think
your radical ecological goals, which I share, can be realized within the
framework of capitalism? If yes, then tell us how. If not, then should you not
accept that they can only be realized in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">a
new kind of</i> socialist society with a planned economy? At least as a
transitional stage to your ultimate ideal society? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: DE;">I don’t know whether anybody had put this question to him, and whether he
had gone into it. I at least did not find any text containing Gruhl’s reply to
it.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The big mistake was however knowingly
made, for some practical reason. In the German proportional representation
electoral system, there has been a so-called 5-percent clause. It says that
only parties or electoral lists that get at least 5 percent of all the votes
cast get seats in the parliaments. In 1979–80, none of the left parties nor any
united left party could have cleared this hurdle. Same was the case with the
value-conservative radical ecological groups. Later, many Greens said quite
candidly that the Green <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Party</i> owed
its birth only to the 5-percent clause.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This chapter of the party was closed,
when, after months of bickering, the federal executive committee dominated by
the leftists gave the radical ecologists an ultimatum. They were told either to
leave the party or get expelled. They left.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The theoretical synthesis ultimately
came, but much later, and not in but outside the Green Party. That however is
another story.<sup>11<br />
<br />
</sup><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Opportunists Took Over<br />
<br />
</i></b>In the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Bundestag </i>election of
1983, the Green Party, founded just 3 years ago, won 5.5% votes and got 27
seats. There was great jubilation over the “victory”, but it was also the
beginning of its <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">end as an ecological
party</i>. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The opportunistic alliance of
disparate groups with disparate programs that had made its quick rise possible
also attracted thousands of opportunists who just wanted to get some political
posts quickly, without having to </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">work their way up the hard way
in the established parties. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: DE;">They simply jumped on the bandwagon.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> It should
be noted here that in Germany, to be a member of the federal or a state
parliament is a highly paid job with many perks, hence highly coveted.
Moreover, it brings the MP in the limelight, which is very useful for her
future career.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Green Party too, which was until
then a small party, wanted to have more members. Anybody and everybody who
wanted to become a member could become one by just signing a membership
application form. Nobody cared about the bona fides of the applicants. Nobody
was asked whether she had read the program. All kinds of people became members:
political opportunists and apolitical sympathizers. For many of the latter it
was a pastime-activity, but it was also a matter of some prestige to be a
member of the new winning group which purported to be both an ecology party and
a left party. They all claimed to want to protect the environment.<sup>12 </sup>or
to work for peace. <sup><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></sup>Most of
them however remained just names in the file. Also <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">groups</i> with a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">particular
interest</i> seeking a place on the political stage joined en masse: gays,
lesbians, pedophiles, feminists, Christians, atheists, professional groups,
foreigner groups etc. etc.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: DE;"> In such a motley crowd of new members, gradually, also the radical
leftists started getting outnumbered in the committees.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The opportunists, who called
themselves “Realos” (realists), put through their policy of becoming a power
factor, i.e. becoming a ruling party in coalition with one of the big
established parties. In 1985, they succeeded for the first time in the state of
Hessen. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This was a U-turn point. Sometime in
the early1980s, Petra Kelly, one of its leaders, had declared that the Green
Party would be a new kind of party, that it would be an “anti-parties party”.
Other leaders had promised that it would be the “parliamentary arm of the
anti-establishment movements”. In the years following 1985, however, the Green
Party became an ordinary party, just like any other, competing for a share of
power. In 1987, they passed a new program, in which they gave up their
opposition to industrial society. Henceforth, they only wanted to “restructure”
it (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Umbau der Industriegesellschaft</i>).
Ten years later, in 1997, they became a ruling party at the center, in
coalition with the Social-Democratic Party.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As a ruling party, in 1999, along
with the NATO, they also waged war against Serbia. Radical leftists had already
deserted the party, now even serious peace activists left it. When the movement
against neoliberal globalization began, the party even criticized the movement.
In 2004, together with the coalition partner SPD, they put through the
anti-labor law known as Hartz IV. Today, it is a totally nondescript party,
neither ecological (it is a reliable ally of the German car industry), nor
leftist, nor a party of the movements. <br />
<br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">In
Conclusion, If I Am Allowed to Give an Advice<br />
<br />
</i></b>Today, any intelligent person can perceive everywhere signs and in some
places even real pictures of impending or ongoing ecological and social
collapse. In such a situation, if I am allowed to give an advice, those who are
active in ecological and social movements that they understand as <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">transformative</i>, should not rush to form
a green party or something like that, especially not in India. It is necessary
first to do the groundwork, i.e. a thorough, objective and sincere analysis of
the whole situation, in the world and in developing world countries, free from
our personal likes and dislikes, our private interests, our <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">myths</i> and our wishful thinking. Only
then can we sketch an <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">achievable good
society</i>. Make-believe <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">utopias</i> are
no use. As far as I can see, till now, not many activists have done this
groundwork. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Also, only on the basis of such an
analysis can we <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">correctly</i> decide <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">what to do</i>, when and in which order.
However, I see among political activists, everywhere, too much arbitrariness in
selecting one’s area of activity, as if anything and everything is good and
important. There is simply no focus in the whole story of movements. But if
everything is important, then really nothing is important. In the end, actually,
it is a question of the right strategy. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I hope, with this article I have
helped my readers to at least get some clarity on <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">what not to do</i>, which pitfalls to avoid.<br />
<br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Notes
and References<br />
<br />
</i></b>1. Georgescu-Roegan, Nicholas (1978) </span><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">"Technology Assessment. The Case of the Direct
Use of Solar Energy";<br />
<br />
</span><a href="http://www.peakoilindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Georgescu-Roegen-The-Case-of-the-Direct-Use-of-Solar-Energy.pdf"><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: #336699; font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">http://www.peakoilindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Georgescu-Roegen-The-Case-of-the-Direct-Use-of-Solar-Energy.pdf</span></a><span class="MsoHyperlink"><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: #336699; font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><br />
<br />
</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: DE;">In the 1990s, I heard James Lovelock, father of the Gaia theory, expressing
in a BBC interview strong doubts about the usefulness of wind energy.<br />
<br />
2 See Saral Sarkar (2017)</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> “</span><a href="http://eco-socialist.blogspot.de/2017/07/the-global-crisis-and-role-of-so-called.html"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #6699cc; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The Global Crisis and Role of So-Called Renewable Energies in Solving It</span></b></a><b><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">“<br />
</span></b><a href="http://eco-socialist.blogspot.de/search?q=global+crisis"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: DE;">http://eco-socialist.blogspot.de/search?q=global+crisis</span></a><span class="MsoHyperlink"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: DE;"><br />
<br />
</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: DE;">3, 4, 5, & 6. Quoted in Ch. 3 of my book:<br />
<br />
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Green-Alternative Politics in West
Germany. </i>Vol. II: <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Greens</i>. Tokyo
and New Delhi: UNU Press, and Promilla. 1994.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(Vol. I of the book is entitled <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The New Social Movements</i>. 1993.)<br />
<br />
7. Quoted in my above-mentioned book (P. 28).<br />
<br />
8. The quotes from Ullrich are to be found on P. 203 of my book:<br />
<br />
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Eco-Socialism or Eco-Capitalism?</i> – <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">A Critical Analysis of Humanity’s
Fundamental Choices.</i> London and New Delhi: Zed Books & Orient Longman.
1999, 2000.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(I published a longish review article
on Ullrich’s book entitled “Marxism and Productive Forces – A Critique”<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i>in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Alternatives
</i>(New York and New Delhi) in 1983.)<br />
<br />
9. Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas (1971) <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The
Entropy Law and the Economic Process</i>. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.<br />
<br />
(Georgescu-Roegen himself wrote a much shorter presentation of the substance of
the book with the title: <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Entropy Law
and the Economic Process in Retrospect</i>, which was published in 1986 in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Eastern Economic Journal.</i>)<br />
<br />
10. Rifkin, Jeremy (1980) <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Entropy: A New
World View.</i> New York: Viking Press.<br />
<br />
11. I claim I have made this <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">synthesis</i>
in my <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Eco-Socialism</i> book (see note
8), a synthesis being much more than and different from just an <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">addition </i>of environmental concerns to
old Marxist conceptions of socialism.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In this connection, I would like to
recommend a paper by a young Australian scholar, Jonathan Rutherford, who
speaks of varieties of eco-socialism:<br />
</span><a href="http://simplicityinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Varieties-of-Eco-Socialism-Simplicity-Institute-1.pdf"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: DE;">http://simplicityinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Varieties-of-Eco-Socialism-Simplicity-Institute-1.pdf</span></a><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color: blue; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: DE;"><br />
<br />
</span></u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: DE;">12. In this context, I think it is necessary to distinguish between an
“environment protector“ (environmentalist”, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Umweltschützer</i>)
and an “ecologist”. People like Herbert Gruhl are true ecologists. A person who
e.g. merely fights to protect a few trees from being felled should better be
called “environment protector”. The <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">de-growth
movement</i> of today can be understood as an <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">ecology</i> movement.<br />
<br />
NB. This article has also been published in RED webjournal. Here is the link<br /><br /><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.radicalecologicaldemocracy.org/the-green-party-of-germany-from-beacon-of-hope-to-a-bog-standard-party/">http://www.radicalecologicaldemocracy.org/the-green-party-of-germany-from-beacon-of-hope-to-a-bog-standard-party/</a><br /><br /><br />
Saral Sarkar is also the author of <br />
<br />
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Crises of Capitalism –A Different
Study of Political Economy</i>. Berkeley: Counterpoint. 2012. <br />
He blogs at <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><a href="http://www.eco-socialism.blogspot.de/"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: DE;">www.eco-socialism.blogspot.de</span></a><span class="MsoHyperlink"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: DE;"><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[endif]--></span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: DE;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />Saral Sarkarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14801618107395376433noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4729735685376119377.post-34830539659178634782018-01-28T05:41:00.000-08:002018-01-28T05:41:12.653-08:00The Two Drivers of Ecological Collapse and the Two Tasks <div class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;">After I had posted my
essay<br />
<i><br />
</i></span><a href="http://eco-socialist.blogspot.de/2017/12/for-saving-earth-we-need-to-tell-whole.html"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; text-decoration-line: none;">For Saving the Earth We Need to
Tell the Whole Truth – an eco-socialist's response to Richard Smith</span></i></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;"><br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;">in my own blogsite <br />
</span><a href="http://www.eco-socialist.blogspot.com/"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">www.eco-socialist.blogspot.com</span></a><span lang="EN-US"><br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;"><br />
and also published it in an online journal (for link, see the previous post below),
a lively and critical debate/discussion ensued in a different online discussion
forum (see the following link)<br />
<br />
</span><a href="https://scncc.net/threads/climate-crisis-and-managed-deindustrialization-debating-alternatives-to-ecological-collapse.223/"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">https://scncc.net/threads/climate-crisis-and-managed-deindustrialization-debating-alternatives-to-ecological-collapse.223/</span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;"><br />
<br />
I contributed two more texts to the
discussion/debate – both meant as response to some of my critics as well as clarification
of my positions. I am now also posting them on my own blogsite, for which I
have revised them slightly.<b> <br />
<br />
<br />
</b></span><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="background: #FCFCFF; color: #141414; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">What Can Be Done
Today?–</span></i></b><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;"> – </span></b><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">Response to Richard's
response</span></i></b><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;"><br />
</span></b><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;"><br />
</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;">Richard has clarified his position. In the
concluding paragraph, there is this clear statement: Overpopulation is a real
problem, which he does not mean to ignore. But it is for him very much "a
secondary driver" </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #141414; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: DE;">of planetary
ecological collapse</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;">. That is why he does not concern
himself much with the population problem. His priority is to "</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">overthrow
capitalism</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;">", the primary driver ….. .
This is his analysis and his decision. We have to take cognizance of this. But
is it a good decision? Should other eco-socialists follow it? Allow me to say a
few words on this question.<br />
To me, it seems Richard is saying that
the two – overthrowing capitalism and stopping population growth – are somehow
separate tasks. First we must overthrow capitalism, then ….. . But, firstly
they are not separate tasks. (Below, I shall try to show how they are
connected.) And secondly, </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">it</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">is not easy</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;"> to overthrow
capitalism and then start de-industrializing the country? Richard himself has
shown with the example of the </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">jobs question</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;"> how difficult it is. Since the mid-19th century, beginning with Marx
and Engels, generations of all kinds of socialists/communists have been trying
to overthrow or overcome capitalism. But it was "socialism" that was
overthrown in the USSR and Eastern Europe in just a span of two years
(1989–1991) – both concretely and ideologically, by the very people who had been
its champions. In China the process had began a decade earlier.<br />
This is not the place to explain how
overthrowing socialism became possible. I have done that elsewhere, in detail.
Here I want to give two part-answers to the other question, namely why it has
been (and still is) so difficult to overthrow capitalism. Here we shall see the
connection between the two drivers of planetary ecological collapse and that
between our two tasks.<br />
India is a good place to see these
two connections. In the early 1990s, (late 1980s???) the country was in the
midst of a serious financial and economic crisis. It had to take a big credit
from the IMF. India got it, but under the usual IMF conditions, namely opening
up of the until then semi-socialist economy for neoliberal-globalist policies.
To make the story short, this policy change led to a long economic boom. India
is today a big economic power house. At the same time, the population continued
to grow as ever. These two trends, economic and demographic, were complementary
to each other, the demographic sector (children producing industry) supplying
all the cheap laborers, and a huge reserve army of the same, needed in the
economic sector. Today, the population of the country (nearly 1.3 billion) is
growing at the rate of some 16 million (1.25 percent) per annum. The economic
elite are rejoicing at the two growth rates. The population growth is being
called "our demographic dividend", growing at a </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">compound
interest</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;"> rate. Today, almost every Indian is using a
handi or even a smartphone, and, at the same time, the air in the cities is
becoming unbreathable and the waters of lakes and rivers undrinkable.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;">Everybody is worshipping the God Capitalism, and the influence of the
communist and socialist parties is rapidly vanishing. <br />
The working class is no longer a
threat to capital, because more people lead to more struggle for survival, more
competition for jobs, less solidarity among workers, more fights of national
and ethnic groups of workers against each other. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The working
class and the trade</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">unions</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;"> are the strongest opponents of the Greens and Eco-activists. Even in
rich Western capitalist countries with zero natural population growth, it is
easy to get strike-breakers, because they can be imported from Eastern Europe
or Mexico and Central America. The Great Crisis of capitalism of the year 2008
came and passed over again to business as usual. All the celebrated movements
in the developed West brought nothing but yet another social-democratic party.
In Spain we got the PODEMOS, in Greece SYRIZA; and in the USA, Occupy Wall
Street fizzled out soon enough. <br />
I am at a loss to know how my
US-American eco-socialist comrades are going to overthrow capitalism soon. I
myself do not have any strategy for that yet. I do not see anywhere any
revolutionary class, agents or party who are preparing to do this. This state
of the world today reminds me of a quote from Schumpeter, from a book entitled </span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: DE;">Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: DE;">. He wrote there: "The capitalist or any
other order of things may evidently break down – or economic and social
evolution may outgrow it – and yet the socialist phoenix may fail to rise from
the ashes." (1943: 56f.)<br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;">I think, today, it is infinitely easier to convince couples in the
problem countries that limiting the number of progenies to two is a good thing
– for themselves, for their children, the future generations, for their
environment, for their country, and for the world in general. Let us start with
what is easier to do at present. For me, at present, counteracting the rapidly
approaching global ecological collapse has top priority. The fight against
capitalism we can also take up as soon as the situation is ripe for that.<br />
<br />
</span><span lang="EN-US">---------------------------------------<br />
<br />
</span><b><span lang="EN-US" style="background: #FCFCFF; color: #141414; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">On the Value of the Equation I = P x T x A <br />
<br />
</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="background: #FCFCFF; color: #141414; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Ted F. writes inter
alia:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst">
<span lang="EN-US" style="background: #FCFCFF; color: #141414; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 35.4pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="background: #FCFCFF; color: #141414; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">" … what is the point of the
formula except to advance the claim that ecological damage of every society is
directly proportional to population--a claim that fits in equally well with the
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="background: #FCFCFF; color: #c00000; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">right-wing passion to
"exterminate the brutes"</span><span lang="EN-US" style="background: #FCFCFF; color: #141414; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> as our ecological vision."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 35.4pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="background: #FCFCFF; color: #141414; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span lang="EN-US" style="background: #FCFCFF; color: #141414; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> The point of the formula is to
make clear that <b>three</b> <b><i>factors</i></b>
(not just one, namely population, as Ted F. alleges) are involved in ecological
destruction (and resource use, I should add). As in the case of most equations
(formulae), it says that if <b><i>T</i></b> and <b><i>A</i></b> would remain unchanged,
ecological destruction and resource use would rise if population rises and fall
if population falls. This is easy to understand. Isn't it? This kind of general
equations are used in every walk of life to make things clear. Nobody
quantifies a factor at this generalized level. If one would quantify all the
factors (e.g. 2 x 2 x 2 = 8), then indeed it would be a tautology, totally
useless in any general discussion. But since all the factors here as well as
the result are variable and unknown in our discussion, it is better to use this
general equation.<br />
Why I have brought it into our
discussion? Because in my long life as a political activist, I have made the
experience that leftists, especially radical leftists, Marxists, feminists,
liberals and 3<sup>rd</sup> world solidarity people, scrupulously avoid </span><span lang="EN-US" style="background: #FCFCFF; color: #c00000; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">the P-word</span><span lang="EN-US" style="background: #FCFCFF; color: #141414; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">. Why? Because </span><span lang="EN-US" style="background: #FCFCFF; color: #c00000; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">they are afraid</span><span lang="EN-US" style="background: #FCFCFF; color: #141414; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> of being abused by people from the 3<sup>rd</sup>
world, for whom the word "overpopulation" is like a red rag to a
bull. I have often made the experience (in Germany, Europe, and also in India)
of being abused as a fascist, once even as a racist, although I come from India
and have a dark-brown complexion. But that is no reason, at least for me, for
not telling the whole truth.<br />
Look at the part-sentence of Ted F.
quoted above: "… a claim that fits in equally well with the right-wing
passion to "exterminate the brutes" …. ." Is this style helpful
for our cause? Is it helpful for our cause to suppress part of the truth? I
don't think so. Thank god, Richard is above this kind of political correctness.<br />
<br />
<b><i>Fallacy
of One World<br />
<br />
</i></b>Many participants in such discussions say: more than enough food is
being produced in the world to satisfy the hunger of all the 7.5 billion humans
in the world. Correct! But (1) is that any reason to let the world population
go on rising? To about 10 billion by 2050? After all, hunger is not the only
problem in this world, also our ecological footprint is a big problem. Isn't
it? (2) Moreover, is it not totally useless, because at present unrealistic, to
think that the farmers (or farming companies) of the few countries where
surplus food grains are being produced should gift away their surplus to the
poor people of the least developed countries? And (3) isn't "</span><b><span lang="EN-US" style="background: #FCFCFF; color: #c00000; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">food sovereignty</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="background: #FCFCFF; color: #c00000; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">" </span><span lang="EN-US" style="background: #FCFCFF; color: #141414; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">a very good idea for
all peoples of the world? The planet Earth is one, but the world (of humans) is
not one. One world, our ideal, has not yet been realized. <br />
<br />
<b><i>On
the Agency Question<br />
</i></b><br />
I think, most leftists in Canada and USA (the continent of origin of SCNCC),
but partly also in Europe, have no real knowledge of the </span><span lang="EN-US" style="background: #FCFCFF; color: #c00000; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">consciousness of the really living
proletariat</span><span lang="EN-US" style="background: #FCFCFF; color: #141414; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> of today. That is
why one can find such delusive sentences on the opening page of the Website: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span lang="EN-US" style="background: #FCFCFF; color: #141414; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 35.4pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="background: #FCFCFF; color: #141414; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">"SCNCC believes the climate
justice movement will unite with the labor movement … to create an
alternative."</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 35.4pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="background: #FCFCFF; color: #141414; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br />
And </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 35.4pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="background: #FCFCFF; color: #141414; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br />
"I am inspired ... to join hands with the working class in China to save
the planet."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 35.4pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="background: #FCFCFF; color: #141414; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br /></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span lang="EN-US" style="background: #FCFCFF; color: #141414; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> Inspiration is absolutely necessary
for having any cause, but it is better to mix it with a good dose of knowledge
of the reality, of the whole truth.<br />
My position on the agency question
can be summarized as follows: There are "only two camps: those who care
and those who don't care." (Erich Fromm, a great interpreter of the best
in Marx, wrote that in 1979).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
Saral Sarkarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14801618107395376433noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4729735685376119377.post-25072289750013288262017-12-01T01:53:00.000-08:002017-12-01T01:53:02.662-08:00For Saving the Earth We Need to Tell the Whole Truth -- an eco-socialist's response to Richard Smith<div class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst" style="background: #FFF5E5; margin-bottom: 3.0pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;"><br />
<i>By Saral Sarkar<br />
</i><br />
In his article,<sup>1</sup> Richard calls upon his readers to "change the
conversation". He asks, "What are your thoughts?"</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #00b050; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;">He says, if we don't "come up with a </span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">viable</span></i><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></i><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">alternative</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;">, our goose is cooked." I fully agree. So I join the conversation,
in order to improve it.<br />
Let me first say I appreciate
Richard's article very much. It is very useful, indeed necessary, to also
present one's cause in a short article – for those who are interested but, for
whatever reason, cannot read a whole book. Richard has ably presented the
eco-socialist case against both capitalism and "green" capitalism.<br />
But the alternative Richard has come
up with is deficient in one very important respect, namely in respect of
viability. Allow me to present here my comradely criticisms. It will be short.<br />
<br />
<b><i>Is
only Capitalism the Problem?<br />
<br />
</i></b>(1) Richard writes, "</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Capitalism, not <b><i>population</i></b>
is the main driver </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;">of planetary ecological collapse
… .". It sounds like an echo of statements from old-Marxist-socialism. It
is not serious. Is Richard telling us that, while we are fighting a
long-drawn-out battle against capitalism in order to overcome it, we can allow
population to continuously grow without risking any further destruction of the
environment? Should we then think that a world population of ten billion by
2050 would not be any problem?<br />
I would agree if Richard would say
that capitalism is, because of its growth compulsion, </span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">one of the main</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;">drivers of ecological collapse. But anybody who has learnt even a little
about ecology knows that in any particular eco-region, exponential growth of
any one species leads to collapse of its ecological balance. If we now think of
the planet Earth as one whole eco-region and consider all the scientific
reports on rapid bio-diversity loss and rapid dwindling of the numbers of
larger animals, then we cannot but correlate these facts with the exponential
growth of our own species, <i>homo sapiens
sapiens</i>, the latter being the cause of the former two.<br />
No doubt, </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">capitalism</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;"> – together with the development of technologies, especially
agricultural and medical technologies – has largely enabled the huge growth of
human numbers in the last two hundred years. But human population growth has
been occurring even in pre-capitalist and pre-medieval eras, albeit at a slower
rate. Parallel to this, also environmental destruction has been occurring and
growing in these eras.<br />
It is not good to tell our readers
only half the truth. The </span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">whole
truth</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;"> is succinctly stated in the
equation:<br />
<br />
I = P x T x A<br />
<br />
where</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> I</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;"> stands for ecological impact (we
can also call it ecological destruction),</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> P </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;">for population, </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">T</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;"> for Technology and </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">A</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;"> for affluence. All these three factors are highly variable. Let me here
also quote Paul Ehrlich, one of my teachers in political ecology. Addressing
leftists, he once wrote, </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">"Whatever [be] your cause, it is a
lost cause unless we control population [growth]"</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;">. Note the phrase "whatever your cause". Ehrlich meant to say,
and I too think so, the cause may be environmental protection, saving the
earth, protecting biodiversity, overcoming poverty and unemployment, women's
liberation, preventing racist and ethnic conflicts and cleansings, preventing
huge unwelcome migration flows, preventing crime, fighting modern-day slavery,
bringing peace in the world, creating a socialist world order etc. etc. etc.,
in all cases stopping population growth is a very important factor. Sure, that
will in no case be enough. But that is an essential part of the solutions.<br />
Note that in the equation cited
above, there is no mention of capitalism. Instead, we find there the two
factors technology and affluence. We can call (and we generally do call) the
product of T x A (production of affluence by means of industrial technologies) </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">industrialism</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;">, of which there has until now been two main varieties: the capitalist
one and the planned socialist one (of the soviet type). Nothing will be gained
for saving the ecological balance of the Earth if only capitalism is replaced
with socialism, and ruling socialists then try to increase production at a
higher rate, which they must do under the pressure of a growing population
which, moreover, develops higher ambitions and aspirations, and demands all the
good things that middle class Americans enjoy.<br />
<br />
(2) Modern-day </span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">old-socialists</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;"> do not deny the existence of an ecological problem. They have also
developed several pseudo-solutions such as "clean" and
"renewable" energies and materials, efficiency revolution, decoupling
of GDP growth from resource use etc.<br />
Good that Richard rejects the idea
that </span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">green capitalism</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;"> can save us. But why can't it? "Because", he writes, "companies
can’t commit economic suicide to save the humans. There’s just no solution to
our crisis within the framework of any conceivable capitalism." This is
good, but not enough. Because there are old-socialists (I know many in Germany)
who believe that it is only individual capitalists/companies and the system
capitalism that are preventing a rapid transition to 100 percent </span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">clean</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">renewable
energies</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;"> and 100 percent </span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">recycling</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;"> of </span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">all materials</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;">. Thanks to these possibilities, they believe, old-socialist type of industrialism,
and even economic and population growth, can be reconciled with the
requirements of sustainability. I don't think that is possible, and I have also
earlier elaborately explained why.<sup>2</sup> Said briefly, "renewable
energies" are neither clean nor renewable, and 100 percent recycling is
impossible because the </span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Entropy
Law</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;"> also applies to matter. What Richard thinks is
not clear from this article of his. It is necessary to make his thoughts on
this point clear. <br />
<br />
<b><i>Is
Bottom-up Democracy of Any Use in the Transition Period? <br />
</i><br />
</b>(3) Richard writes, "Rational planning requires </span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">bottom-up democracy</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #00b050; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;">" I do not understand the connection between the two, planning and
democracy. At the most, one could say that for better planning for the villages,
the planning commission should also listen to the villagers. But at the
national level? Should, e.g., the inhabitants of each and every 500 souls
village in the Ganges basin codetermine in a bottom up democratic planning
process how the waters of the said river and its tributaries should be
distributed among ca. 500 million inhabitants of the basin? If that were ever
to be attempted, the result would be chaos, not planning. Moreover, how do you
ensure that the villagers are capable of understanding the national interest
and overcoming their particular interests? Such phrases are only illusions.<br />
In his 6<sup>th</sup> thesis, Richard
sketches a rosy, </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">idealistic picture</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;"> of a future eco-socialist society and its citizens. That may be
attractive for him, me and other eco-socialists. But this future lies in
distant future. First we would need a long </span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">transition period</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;">of </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">contracting economies</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;">, and that would cause </span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">a lot
of pain </span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;">to millions of people spoilt by
consumerism or promises of a consumerist future. We shall have to convince such
people, and that would be an altogether difficult job. We should tell them the </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">truth</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;">, namely that </span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">austerity
is</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> <b><i>necessary</i></b></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;"> for saving the
earth. We can </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">promise </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;">them only one thing,
namely that all the pains and burdens as well as the benefits of austerity will
be </span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">equitably</span></i><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;">distributed among all. <br />
<br />
<b><i>What
to Do About Jobs?<br />
<br />
</i></b>(4) Richard writes: "Needless to say, retrenching and closing down
such industries would <i>mean </i></span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">job losses</span></i><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;">,</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;"> millions of jobs from here to China<i>.
</i>Yet if we don’t shut down those unsustainable industries, </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">we’re
doomed</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;">." And then he puts the question "</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">What
to do?</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;">" We can be sure that all people who wholly
depend on a paid job for their livelihood, whom we must also win over, will
confront us with this jobs question. Let me finish my contribution to this
conversation with an answer to this question. <br />
There is not much use talking to
ourselves, the already converted. We need to </span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">start</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> <i>work</i></span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;">,</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;"> immediately and all over the world, especially in those countries where
poverty and unemployment is very high. We know that, generally, these countries
are also those where population growth is very high. People from the rich
countries cannot simply tell their people, sorry, we have to close down many
factories and we cannot further invest in industrializing your countries. But
the former can tell the latter that they can help them in controlling
population growth. The latter will understand easily that it is an immediately
effective way to reduce poverty and unemployment. A massive </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">educative
campaign</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;"> will of course be necessary in addition to
concrete monetary and technical help. <br />
In the rich countries, contrary to
what Richard perhaps thinks, it will not be possible to provide new equivalent jobs
to replace those jobs we need to abolish. For such countries, reducing working
hours and job-sharing in the short term, and, in the long term, ostracizing
automation and labor-saving technologies, and using labor-intensive methods of
production instead,<i> </i>are together the
only solution. That is already known. Another thing that would be needed is to
negate free trade and international competition. However, it must also be said
openly that high wages and salaries cannot be earned under such circumstances. <br />
We eco-socialist activists must begin
the work with a massive world-wide </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">political campaign</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;"> in favor of such ideas and policies.<br />
<br />
<b><i>Notes
and References</i><br />
<br />
</b>1. Smith, Richard (2017) "</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;"> Climate Crisis and Managed
Deindustrialization: Debating Alternatives to Ecological Collapse."</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;"><br />
</span><a href="https://forhumanliberation.blogspot.de/2017/11/2753-climate-crisis-and-managed.html"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;">https://forhumanliberation.blogspot.de/2017/11/2753-climate-crisis-and-managed.html</span></a><br />
and<br />
<a href="https://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/11/21/climate-crisis-and-managed-deindustrialization-debating-alternatives-ecological"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;">https://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/11/21/climate-crisis-and-managed-deindustrialization-debating-alternatives-ecological</span></a><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 12pt;">2. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;">My views expressed in this article have been elaborately presented in my
book: <br />
<i>Eco-Socialism or Eco-Capitalism? – A
Critical Analysis of Humanity's Fundamental Choices </i>(1999). London: Zed
Books, <br />
and in various articles published in my blog-site <br />
</span><a href="http://www.eco-socialist.blogspot.com/"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">www.eco-socialist.blogspot.com</span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
Saral Sarkarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14801618107395376433noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4729735685376119377.post-37946900105950957642017-11-13T03:27:00.000-08:002017-11-13T03:27:20.331-08:00Understanding Secessionism in the Era of Globalization -- An Eco-Socialist View<div class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst">
<span lang="EN-US">In
September 2014, I had occasion to write an article entitled <i>Unity or Separation? – Did the Scots Decide
Sensibly?</i><sup>1</sup> In that year, the provincial government of Scotland,
the Scottish National Party (SNP), and a large part of the Scottish people, who
wanted to secede from the United Kingdom, held a referendum on the question. A
majority voted No. The secessionists were disappointed, but the SNP is still governing
Scotland. <br />
This year, 2017, between September
and October, three referenda took place that have a roughly similar character:
two in Europe and one in the Middle East. And we know that in Europe alone
several other regions have their own independence/separatist movement.<sup>2 </sup> In this article, I would like to take up the
issue once more, in order to elaborate on some <i>basic points</i>. <br />
In a referendum that took place on
October 1, 2017, the<span style="color: #c00000;"> Catalans</span> declared their
wish to secede from Spain and make out of their autonomous region an independent
state. Separatist leaders claim that a good 90 percent of the Catalans voted for
secession. But that was the result of a referendum in which only 42 percent of
the eligible voters voted (or could vote), because the Spanish central
government had declared it illegal and had tried to prevent voting by means of
police violence.<br />
Also the <span style="color: #c00000;">Kurds</span>
of the autonomous <i>Kurdistan Region</i> of
Iraq held a nonbinding independence referendum in September of this year. Also
in this case, more than 90 percent of the
voters voted in favor of independence. <br />
These are the minimal facts required for
an introduction to this text. My readers, I assume, have been following the current
events as much as I. My purpose here is mainly to try to give a <i>tentative </i>answer
to the <span style="color: #c00000;">question</span> why, in recent times – in
the era of globalization, in which the world is said to have become a global
village – large sections of many peoples living in certain regions have been
trying to secede from a larger state or a union of states to which they belong(ed)
till now? Some examples are the Basques and Catalans in Spain, the Baltic
peoples in the erstwhile Soviet Union, Scots in the UK, the Corsicans in
France, the English people (not all the peoples of the UK) in the European
Union, the peoples of the erstwhile Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia etc. I think it is possible to indicate an answer and briefly <i>discuss</i> it and some evidences for
it.<br />
<br />
<b><i><span style="color: #c00000;">The Right Of Peoples To Self-determination<br />
<br />
</span></i></b>There are some contradictions in human nature. We are gregarious
animals, we love to, but also <i>must</i>
for the sake of security, live in bands and societies and states. But we also
cherish independence and self-determination and hate compulsion to live in undesired
unions with other people. In chapter 1, article 2 of the charter of the United
Nations it is written that its purpose is "to develop friendly relations
among <i><span style="color: red;">nations</span></i>
based on <i><span style="color: red;">respect</span>
</i>for the <i><span style="color: red;">principle</span></i><span style="color: red;"> of</span> equal rights and <span style="color: red;">self-determination</span>
of <i><span style="color: red;">peoples</span></i>,
…." . This principle is what secessionists everywhere invoke in support of
their right to self-determination. But the trouble is, it is only a declaration
of respect for a principle. Although widely used in formal and informal political
speeches and writings, this right mostly doesn't have the status of a statute
law, that is, it is not always a written law passed by a legislative body such
as a parliament or a constituent assembly. Another trouble is, there is no
clear definition of the terms "<span style="color: red;">nation</span>"
and "<span style="color: red;">people</span>". It seems, the UN charter
is saying that a people is not a nation, but it can <i>become </i>one if it can, by exercising its right to
self-determination, create its own state. Then it can be recognized by the UN
as a nation.<br />
In the case of the European Union, it has been made
clear in its statute that it is possible for a member state to leave the Union,
<i>Brexit</i> being a good example. In the
constitution of the erstwhile Soviet Union, there was a clear article that
gave the constituent republics the right to secede (although the procedural
details thereof were left undecided). It was this constitutional provision that
the Baltic republics invoked
when they wanted to be independent in the late 1980s. In the case of the
Scottish independence referendum (2014), a law was passed in the British parliament that allowed
the referendum to be held. If the majority of the voters had voted in the
affirmative, Scotland would today be an independent state. These cases of (attempted)
secession were undisputedly legal.<br />
But does that mean that a people,
minority or not, that happens to live with other peoples in a state whose
constitution does not expressly give the possibility of secession, can never
become independent? That exactly is the argument of the Spanish and the Iraqi governments. They say it is unconstitutional to
strive for independence, therefore it is illegal. It is a tricky question.
Firstly, such a people can indeed become independent, and that even peacefully,
if the other people(s) living in the concerned state agree to the idea. Thus the Czechs and the Slovaks
separated by mutual agreement and two independent states were made out of the former
Czechoslovakia (1993). Also the dissolution of the former Soviet Union took place (1991)
by mutual agreement, although in this case, the above mentioned imprecise provision
in the constitution of the USSR and, effectively, the will of the then leaders
of the Russian Federation to get rid of the burden, were very helpful. In the
opposite case, the armed forces of the USSR could have violently suppressed
such processes. (But later, Russia refused to let Chechnya become independent).
<br />
Here we see that two <i><span style="color: #c00000;">conflicting</span></i>
<i><span style="color: #c00000;">principles</span></i>
are being invoked by the opposing parties. For the Catalan and Kurd
secessionists, it is the right of self-determination of peoples, which, they
seem to say, is a fundamental right that stands above any constitution. But for
the central governments of Spain and Iraq, the constitution of a sovereign
state is sacrosanct. In fact, as stated above, the latter is a statute law, whereas
the former is only a principle, at best a common law.<br />
It is not possible here to examine
the constitutions of all the concerned states where an independence movement of
this type has been an issue. But it is a fact that the independence struggles
of <span style="color: #c00000;">Bangladesh, Kosovo, and South Sudan</span> could
only succeed through military struggle. De facto, then, it is also possible for
a people living in a clearly delineated province or region of any state to win
its independence irrespective of the articles of the constitution of the
concerned country – through an uprising,
military victory, and/or support of powerful allies. <br />
<br />
<b><i><span style="color: #c00000;">Factors involved in secession Conflicts<br />
<br />
</span></i></b><i>Economic Interest<br />
<br />
</i>Catalan secessionists
have two problems with remaining a part of Spain. They say they are not
Spaniards, but Catalans. They say they are a nation, they have their own language<span style="color: red;"> </span>with a developed literature<span style="color: red;">.</span> So why can't a nation have a state, the most normal
thing in the world? That may appear to be their main argument for secession,
but they have another strong reason for desiring independence, namely economic interest, and they say
that openly. Catalonia is the most prosperous region in Spain. It produces 20
percent of Spain's GDP and raises 20 percent of the state's revenue, but gets
back from the centre much less than that, which they find to be unfair. <br />
Similar is the argument of <span style="color: red;">Lombardy </span>and<span style="color: red;"> Veneto (Venetia)</span> for demanding more autonomy,
particularly over the revenue raised in their own province. These two northern provinces
are economically the most developed in Italy. In a process similar to that in
Catalonia, they have to de facto subsidize the relatively underdeveloped South.
Lombardy claims it has to give away 45 percent of its tax revenue to the South.
They do not say they are a separate nation, nor are they now striving for
independence. They all speak Italian, yet they have their own regional party,
the <i><span style="color: red;">Lega Nord</span></i><span style="color: red;">, </span>the
main point of the program of which was at the beginning independence.<br />
Let me lay stress on this factor, the economic reasons for
secession, with a telling example from the recent past. 26 years ago, <span style="color: #c00000;">Slovenia </span>and<span style="color: #c00000;"> Croatia</span>, then constituent
republics of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, wanted to break away
from Yugoslavia and become fully independent. In the process, they let loose a
devastating war that broke up Yugoslavia. In those days, ordinary
readers/viewers of popular media used to think of this war as an ethnic war in
which the Croats and Slovenes (later also the Kosovans) fought against the Serbs
who dominated over all the other ethnic groups in Yugoslavia. But a passage
quoted below from a book written by an expert on the Balkan region shows that
it was mainly for economic reasons that the Croats and Slovenes wanted to break
away from Yugoslavia. Misha Glenny, the author, summarizes his interview (in
1992) with Mate Babic, a professor of economics at the University of Zagreb and
a former deputy prime minister responsible for the economy in the Croatian
government, as follows: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 35.4pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span lang="EN-US">"Yugoslavia
… was constructed in the wake of the Great War [WWII] as a political imperative
without regard to the region's economic requirements. In the post-war communist
federation, the imbalance between Slovene sophistication and the developing
world conditions in Kosovo, southern Serbia and Macedonia could only be
rectified by massive state control of the economy. This created resentment in
the prosperous north, the fruits of whose productivity were transferred to the
dusty climates of the south where they rotted in the sun. Above all, a taut
mistrust grew up between Slovenia and Croatia [on the one side], where a more
industrious work ethic was the tradition, and Serbia [on the other], the
borderland of the Ottoman empire's corrupt economic values. Being inextricably
involved with the Serbian economy, which appears to be fueled by lotus leaves,
had a damaging long-term effect on the Croat and Slovene economies. When the
political decay in Yugoslavia accelerated, following the multi-party elections
in the [constituent] republics, the economic tensions ensured that this
mistrust would deepen."<sup>3<o:p></o:p></sup></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span lang="EN-US"> However, there are also cases in which
economic interest led people to decide <i>against
</i>independence. The best known recent case is of course that of the Scottish
independence referendum (2014). A majority of the voters (55% ) rejected the
independence drive of the SNP. A nationalist Scot said in bewilderment: "I
cannot understand that the majority of a people refuses to be independent."
He had underestimated the power of the factor economic interest<br />
I can give two more little known examples.
In the Indian Ocean, situated north of Madagascar, there is a group of islands
called the Comoro Archipelago.
They had been for long colonies of France. In 1974, France asked the people whether
they wished to have independence. In the referendum held on this question, three
of the bigger four islands decided to be independent. But 63 percent of the
inhabitants of Mayotte voted
against. In another referendum two years later, 99 percent of the people repeated
their decision to forgo independence and retain their status as a French
colony. Today, Mayotte is a fully integrated part of France, its residents are
French citizens.<br />
One may ask: how is it possible that
a population of 213 000, the vast majority of which are Muslims and of African
origin refuse to become independent and live with their ethnically and
religiously similar neighbors in one state? Here too, the answer is: economic
interest. Although Mayotte is
the poorest of all the departments of France, it is still, thanks to its being
a part of France and the EU, <span style="background: white; color: #222222;">much
more prosperous than the other countries of the Mozambique Channel, so much so that
it is a major destination of illegal migrants. Many come with women in advanced
stage of pregnancy, who want to deliver their babies here, so that the latter
(the babies) automatically get French citizenship. Compared to Mayotte's relative
prosperity, the Union of the Comoros, consisting of the other three bigger
islands and some smaller ones, is one of the so-called least developed
countries (LDC), more than 20 percent of whose population of working age are
unemployed. <br />
</span> Another such example is the
island of Guadeloupe in
the Caribbean Sea, also a former French Colony, and since 1946 a part of the
French state. Here too there is an independence movement. But the majority does
not want to be independent.<br />
<br />
<i>Unforgettable Historical Memories <br />
</i><br />
We may call them whatever we like – ethnic group, nation, sub-nation,
nationality – the concerned aggrieved people that are today striving for
independence and their own state, have some unforgettable historical <span style="color: #c00000;">memories of subjugation, oppression, exploitation,
military defeat, betrayal </span>or broken promises perpetrated against them by
some superior power. That is mostly enough to give rise to protracted rebellions
aiming at independence.<br />
The struggle of the Kurdish people for independence
and a state of their own is a telling example of this factor. Until exportable
quantities of oil were found in the Iraqi Kurdish region, economic interest did
not play any role in the conflict. On the contrary. Living as they do in a
land-locked territory, they have many good economic reasons to maintain good
relations with their neighbors. Yet they are fighting and dying for
independence. Why?<br />
Let us take a cursory glance at <span style="color: #c00000;">Kurdish history</span> in search of an answer. Rulers of
the states in which the Kurdish majority areas lie, generally avoided using the
term <i>Kurd, </i>or even prohibited its use.
For long, even the existence of this people with an identity was denied. The
official Turkish denomination for them was <i>hill
Turks</i> (<i>Bergtürken</i> in German).<br />
After the disintegration of the Ottoman
Empire at the end of the First World War, the victorious powers had granted the
Kurds the right to self-determination (1920). During the Turkish resistance
against the occupation powers and formation of the new Turkish state, Kemal
Atatürk had promised to build a state<i> of
both people</i> (Turks and Kurds) and so received the support of Kurdish chiefs
and sheikhs. But then, after victory, he refused to honor the promise of
self-determination given to the Kurdish people by the victorious powers. Nor
was there any question of a state of both peoples. Instead, he built up a
centralist, unitary, national state of Turkey on the pattern of the French
state – following the motto "one
state, one nation, one language, one identity". The various
nationalities and minorities were called upon to become one nation in a melting
pot. But the Kurds did not accept the idea. Since then, they have attempted
several rebellions, in 1925, 1930, and 1938. But every time, the much stronger
Turkish army could suppress them. The recent history of guerilla actions led by
PKK is well known. Similar has been the case in Iraq and Syria.<br />
The <i><span style="color: #c00000;">Catalans</span></i>
too cannot forget and forgive their grievances against Spain. Their <span style="background: white; color: #222222;">desire for independence is not based
only on financial injustice. They also argue that they are not Spaniards, that
they have been </span><span style="background: white; color: #c00000;">a nation</span><span style="background: white; color: #222222;"> through several centuries of history
and have been oppressed and exploited by their neighboring nations: first, as </span><span style="background: white;">the principality of
Catalonia</span><span style="background: white; color: #222222;"> under the crown
of Aragon and later, since the early 18<sup>th</sup> century, as a </span><span style="background: white; color: #c00000;">conquered territory</span><span style="background: white; color: #222222;"> of the kingdom of </span><span style="background: white; color: #c00000;">Spain</span><span style="background: white; color: #222222;"> that came into existence through the </span><span style="background: white;">forced unification</span><span style="background: white; color: #222222;"> of the crown of Aragon with the crown
of Castile. The Spanish crown abolished all non-Castilian institutions, and <i>Catalan</i>, along with all other </span><span style="background: white;">languages</span><span style="background: white; color: #c00000;">,</span><span style="background: white; color: #222222;"> was replaced with <i>Spanish</i>
in government and legal matters. During the Second Spanish Republic (1931–1939)<i>, </i>a typical Catalan institution, <i>the Generalitat </i>of Catalonia, </span>an
autonomous form of government, <span style="background: white; color: #222222;">was
restored<i>. </i>After the Spanish Civil War,
the Franco dictatorship enacted repressive measures abolishing Catalan
institutions and banning again the official use of the Catalan language. To sum
up, Catalonia was, of course, a part of Spain for over three centuries, but it
never was unified with Castile or Spain in a peaceful process and of the Catalans'
own free will.</span><br />
<span style="background: white; color: #222222;">
These are actually also examples of struggles of smaller and weaker
peoples to assert their ethnic/group identity against attempts to </span><span style="background: white; color: #c00000;">assimilate</span><span style="background: white; color: #222222;"> them into a bigger political entity (nation, federal
state or union of states).<br />
<br />
</span><i>Hurt Cultural identity<br />
<br />
</i><span style="background: white; color: #222222;">A group identity can
also form around a </span><span style="background: white; color: #c00000;">language</span><span style="background: white; color: #222222;">. In that case it had better be called
language identity categorized under cultural identity. In Turkey, for a long
time, the Kurdish language was suppressed, could not be used in government, and
was not allowed to be taught in schools. In 1945 even their national dress for
men, the Sal Sapik, was prohibited. In 1967, the Turkish government once more
banned the Kurdish language and, along with it, Kurdish music, literature and
newspapers.</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: #222222; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: #222222; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br />
The concept <i>cultural identity </i>should also include identity formed around a </span><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: #c00000; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">religion</span><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white;"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: #222222; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">as it happened among Muslims in the Indian
subcontinent. We have seen above that both the Kurds and the Catalans complain
that in the past their cultural identity was sought to be suppressed by the
Turks and the Spaniards respectively. But they had no grievance in regard to
their religion. The best example, however, of secessionism purely on the basis
of language-identity is the formation of </span><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: #c00000; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Bangladesh. <br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: #222222; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> The people of what is today
called Bangladesh, the vast majority of whom were (still are) Muslim, had decided
to be a part of Pakistan when India was divided into two states in 1947. This
decision violated all principles of economic rationality. It was purely based
on their </span><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: #c00000; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Muslim identity</span><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: #222222; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">, on the idea of
all Muslims of the subcontinent being one nation, the Hindus being the other. <br />
But soon they realized that they were
being treated as a colony by the West Pakistanis. The dissatisfaction came to
the fore when, in 1948, the central government – with its seat in Karachi in
the western part of the country – dictated that <i>Urdu</i> was to be the sole national language of the state. The Diktat
sparked off extensive protests and demonstrations among the Bengali-speaking
East Pakistanis, who demanded that Bengali be recognized as an official
language of the country. They also found that </span><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white;">ethnic and linguistic discrimination was common in Pakistan's civil and
military services, in which Bengalis were under-represented</span><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: #00b050; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white;">The state also banned
Bengali literature and music in state media including the works of Nobel
laureate Rabindranath Tagore, who was a Hindu Bengali, whose works nonetheless
were read and sung with great respect by educated Bengali Muslims. <br />
Against the background of these resentments,
protests and demands there arose a <i>language
movement </i>(<i>Bhasa Andolon</i>), in the
course of which some students were killed by the police (1952), who since then
have been regarded as martyrs for their language. This movement signified a
decisive </span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: #c00000; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">identity shift</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white;"> in the country: From being primarily East-Pakistani Muslims in the
1940s, the people became, after the successful liberation war of 1971, Bengali
speaking citizens of a newly founded secular state.<br />
</span><span lang="EN-US"> Also
in <span style="color: #c00000;">Belgium</span>, the major issue in the conflict
between <span style="color: #c00000;">Flanders and Wallonia</span> is language
identity – the Flemish people (of Flanders) speak Dutch and the Walloon people
are Francophone. However, the other two factors also play a role in it. As in
Catalonia, for a long time in the past, French was the dominant language, and
the former's language, Dutch, was suppressed. And today, as opposed to the
situation in the past, Flanders is the more prosperous region of Belgium. Many
compromises had to be found to keep the two regions together. But a Flemish
separatism is still there. In fact, all parties of Belgium are split into two
separate parties. <span style="color: #00b050;"><br />
</span><b><i><span style="color: #c00000;"><br />
Conclusions<br />
<br />
</span></i></b><i>The Reality of the World Situation</i><br />
<br />
Let me make a few points in conclusion – in the sense of an eco-socia.list's
take of the recent trend toward and current events of secessionism.<br />
(1) We cannot ignore <span style="color: #c00000;">feelings</span> of people. They are there. But we should
not also ignore <span style="color: #c00000;">the reality</span>. There is no
doubt that about half, perhaps even a slight majority, of the Catalans want independence,
that because of bad memories from past history, this half does not want to be
governed by the Spaniards any longer, they may even <i><span style="color: #c00000;">hate</span></i><span style="color: #c00000;">
</span>Spaniards in general. But they have no objection to ceding part of their
sovereignty to the <span style="color: #c00000;">EU</span>. Isn't it a <i><span style="color: #c00000;">contradiction</span></i><span style="color: #c00000;"> </span>(if
you leave aside the fact of hatred)? The same can be said of the desire of a
large part of the <span style="color: #c00000;">Scots</span> to see Scotland break
away from the UK but remain a member of the EU. Of somewhat similar character is
the desire of a majority of English people to be <i><span style="color: #c00000;">politically</span></i> more independent (through
<span style="color: #c00000;">Brexit) </span>and at the same time enjoy the <i><span style="color: #c00000;">economic</span> </i><span style="color: #c00000;">advantages</span> of being a member of the EU. Reality is, <i><span style="color: #c00000;">Globalization</span></i>
has today become such a strong economic factor that no people can any longer maintain
the attained general <span style="color: #c00000;">standard of living</span> without
bowing to it, albeit at the price of losing a large part of its economic freedom.<br />
<i> </i>(2) The argument of the central
governments of Spain and Iraq that their <span style="color: #c00000;">constitutions
</span>do not allow independence
of regions is nonsensical. Constitutions and laws are made by people and they
can be changed. The state of Iraq itself was artificially created by two imperialist
powers. If constitutions were sacrosanct, written down for all future time, no
people could ever have become independent, no subjugated or oppressed people
would ever be able to push out their oppressors.<br />
Today, the all-important question for
us is whether it is not only legally and<span style="color: #c00000;">
morally, but <i>also politically</i> good</span>,<span style="color: #c00000;"> </span>hence justifiable, that Catalans and
Iraqi Kurds unilaterally declare independence. One may say the moral question
has been unequivocally answered by the UN principle of right of peoples to
self-determination. I do not think that is right. Today, there is hardly any
country, any region in the world that is not inhabited by <span style="color: #c00000;">a mix of peoples – </span>a result of past history. To suddenly make many of them
foreigners in a country where they have taken roots (e.g. Spaniards in
Catalonia, Turkmens in Kurdistan), is not a good decision, neither morally nor
politically. Politically, it would be a bad decision, if it were surely to have
bad repercussions in the region. I can well understand why many Spaniards,
including those who declare themselves to be both Catalans and Spaniards, hate
the Catalan secessionists. Firstly, it is not a long time ago that the Basque
secessionists tried to achieve their goal of independence by violent means
(bombings and killings and all that). And secondly, it would create serious economic
problems when Spain hasn't yet fully recovered from the great crisis of 2008. <br />
(3) It would be a valid <span style="color: #c00000;">moral argument</span> for secessionist efforts if one could say that, in the present set-up,
the minority people living in a region of the concerned country are being
oppressed or discriminated against <i>as a
people</i>. But where was oppression and discrimination in Catalonia before
October 1, 2017, when the Guardia Civil used violence to prevent the referendum
happening? Where was oppression and discrimination in Scotland and in the
Kurdish autonomous region of Iraq? The only concrete argument that remained for
these three cases was an <span style="color: #c00000;">immoral one</span>: The Catalans did not like to share
their prosperity with the poorer regions of Spain, and the Scots and the Iraqi
Kurds did not want to share their oil wealth. <br />
(4) I have much understanding for the
emotional sensibility of people to their native country (in German, <i>Heimat</i>) and their native language. I can
understand that today, some three decades after the beginning of the era of
globalization, in some countries of Europe and in the USA many among the native
people fear they are losing their country, fear they will soon become a
minority in their own country – for instance, in England (Brexit supporters),
Netherlands (supports of Geert Wilders' party), Germany (supporters of the AFD
party), France (supporters of FN), and in the US (Trump supporters). The Serbs
feel they have already lost <i>their</i> province
Kosovo to the Albanians. Human nature hasn't changed yet. We and the others,
that is still how most people think. <br />
<br />
<i>What is to be done in regard to these
trends?<br />
<br />
</i>I cannot find secessionism good, nor even OK, unless a people is really
being oppressed and/or badly exploited as a whole, as under an imperialist/colonial
rule or by another people living in the same state. The existence of an
abstract and unclear principle in the UN charter should not be regarded as sufficient
ground for starting a secessionist movement. Recent history as well as the
current world situation shows that any such movement, if it gathers momentum,
may cause enormous damage to the peoples concerned and, in general, to the
world. In the Bangladesh liberation war, according to Bangladeshi estimates,
some three million people were killed, and a few million had to seek refuge in
India. Some other examples are the struggle of the ETA to free Basque Country
from Spain, the struggle of the Kashmiri Muslims and that of the Punjabi Sikhs (in
the 1980s) to effect secession of their respective provinces from India, the
liberation war of the Tamils of Sri Lanka. All these efforts, except that of the
Bangladeshis, failed, causing huge loss of life and other associated
sufferings. Today, without a successful war it is nearly impossible, at least enormously
difficult for a region to secede from a state that has become established. No
ruling politician would agree to break up a state that she was elected to
govern, nor would politicians of other states like to rock the boat. The two cases
of tolerance, Scotland and Czechoslovakia, are exceptions and would probably
remain exceptions until and unless human civilization starts collapsing. We are
today getting a foretaste of this latter scenario in <i><span style="color: #c00000;">Somalia</span></i>, where a separate, but
internationally unrecognized state has come up, namely <i>Somaliland</i>. <br />
Today, we are suffering from so many
great crises and problems that urgently need to be addressed by the whole
humanity – ecology crises, climate crisis, finance crisis, global illegal
migration, large-scale poverty, huge inequality, danger of wars etc. So no new
small crises and problems should be created in the name of self-determination
of people, least of all because of <i><span style="color: #c00000;">prosperity-separatism</span></i>. True, all individuals and all peoples love
independence, but all also need cooperation and help from the others. Today, secessionist
movements are only distractions from the main tasks. In regions like Catalonia,
Kashmir etc. right to self-determination should take a back seat behind realizing
<i><span style="color: #c00000;">all human
rights for all</span></i><span style="color: #c00000;"> </span>and peaceful coexistence of peoples in
multi-ethnic, multi-lingual states. The latter goal can be achieved through federal
constitutions that guarantee minority rights. An example thereof is India, a
federal republic, which is the home of 1.3 billion people with 22 official languages.
Even the <span style="color: #c00000;">PKK </span>was once ready to make peace on the basis of regional
autonomy within Turkey. Maybe new state names can be introduced to replace problematic
ones, e.g. United Republic of Anatolia in place of Turkey, United Kingdom of
Iberian peoples in place of Spain.<br />
So far as language identity is
concerned, there is no need to fight for it any more. No people in the world is
nowadays being punished for speaking and writing its own language, not even the
Kurds in Turkey. And English as lingua franca of the world is increasingly
pulling down all the language barriers between peoples. Take again India as an
example. <br />
<br />
<span style="color: #c00000;">References<br />
<br />
</span>1.Sarkar, Saral (2014) <i>Unity or Separation? – Did the Scots Decide
Sensibly?<br />
</i></span><a href="http://eco-socialist.blogspot.de/search?q=Scots"><span lang="EN-US">http://eco-socialist.blogspot.de/search?q=Scots</span></a><i><span lang="EN-US"><br />
</span></i><span lang="EN-US"><br />
2. See for example:<br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #222222; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">"This map shows the European regions fighting
to achieve independence."<br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #444444; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Jun. 17,
2017, in RT(online).</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #222222; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><br />
</span><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/map-of-european-independence-movements-2017-6?IR=T"><span lang="EN-US">http://www.businessinsider.com/map-of-european-independence-movements-2017-6?IR=T</span></a><span lang="EN-US"> and<br />
<br />
</span><span lang="EN-US">"</span><span lang="RU">Spain, Italy, Belgium: Battle lines drawn for independence after Scottish
vote</span><span lang="EN-US">."<br />
</span><span lang="RU">Published time: September 19, 2014</span><span lang="EN-US">, in RT News (online).</span><span lang="RU"><br />
</span><a href="https://www.rt.com/news/188752-scottish-no-independence-movements/"><span lang="RU">https://www.rt.com/news/188752-scottish-no-independence-movements/</span></a><span lang="EN-US"><br />
<br />
</span><span lang="EN-US">3.</span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: #222222; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> </span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #222222; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Glenny<span style="background: white;">, </span>Misha<span style="background: white;"> </span>(1996<span style="background: white;">) <i>The Fall of Yugoslavia</i>. London: Penguin.<br />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br />
<!--[endif]--></span></span></div>
Saral Sarkarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14801618107395376433noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4729735685376119377.post-80385139967844241522017-08-20T04:18:00.000-07:002017-08-20T13:17:27.029-07:00There is No Such Thing as a Free Lunch, For Humans. -- Response to Some Comments on My Essay in Insurge-Intelligence<div class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst">
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">On 28<sup>th</sup> July, I posted an essay of mine entitled <i>The Global Crisis and Role of So-called
Renewable Energies in Solving It</i> on this blog-site (see below). It had been
published a few days earlier in the online magazine <i>Insurge-Intelligence</i> as a contribution to a symposium on renewable
energies (</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;"><a href="https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-clean-is-clean-energy-why-renewables-cannot-solve-the-global-crisis-10205baeb781"><span lang="EN-US">https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-clean-is-clean-energy-why-renewables-cannot-solve-the-global-crisis-10205baeb781</span></a></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">).</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: DE;"><br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> Several readers responded to it with comments,
both positive and negative. Prof. Mark Diesendorf, another contributor to the
symposium, who had expressed views totally opposite to those of mine (<a href="https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/the-feasibility-of-100-renewable-energy-f624d93e1424">https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/the-feasibility-of-100-renewable-energy-f624d93e1424</a>),
also responded with two half dissenting and half agreeing comments. <br />
I thought it was necessary to respond
to his comments with a short article that clarifies some important issues not
dealt with in my original contribution, which was limited by space. I now publish
it here. See below.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br /></span></div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;">
I knew that my contribution to the symposium would be controversial. And indeed
many readers have commented. I thank those who have expressed agreement with my
views, and ignore the suspicion that I am being paid by some people for writing
what I have written. I shall here limit my response to some critical comments/views
of Mark Diesendorf that he made/expressed in his response to my essay. I think
they deserve to be paid attention to. <br />
<br />
</span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt;">Numbers, Facts and Statistics<br />
<br />
</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;">Mark wants to know the names of the experts who
doubt that the EROEI of solar energy (PV-tech.) is positive (or, I should say,
positive enough to run, in future, an industrial economy). In fact, in my essay
I have given reference to Ugo Bardi's article on the subject. Some references
can be found there and in the discussion following it. See also Prof. Charles
Hall's contribution to the discussion in </span><a href="http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.de/2016/05/the-real-eroi-of-photovoltaic-systems.html"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.de/2016/05/the-real-eroi-of-photovoltaic-systems.html</span></b></a><span lang="EN-US"><br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;"> I am
not a <i>researcher </i>on the subject, but
I try to keep myself informed as an interested political activist. Mark writes:
"The claim was only true several decades ago, before solar PV modules were
mass-produced." My information is just the opposite. In a much quoted
scientific paper published in 1991 in a serious scientific journal called <i>International Journal of Solar Energy</i>(Vol.
10, 1991), Wolfgang Palz and Henri Zibetta wrote 26 years ago that, in European
climates, the average energy payback time (EPT) for photovoltaic modules were as
low as 1.2 to 2.1 years. That means their EROEI was very high. (EPT and EROEI
are both measuring units for the same thing, namely </span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt;">net energy</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;">, expressed in two
different ways. They are roughly inversely proportional). In the following
years of the 1990s however, in the works of other researchers, the EPT figures
for Photovoltaic modules rose, to 7 years, 9 years and 10 years – in spite of presumable
continuous improvements in the technology. <br />
I could not (and still cannot) judge
the scientific quality of these research works. The point I want to make here
is only that, in the 1990s, it appeared and it still appears to me that a lot
of arbitrary </span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt;">calculating
methods</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;"> and perhaps also </span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt;">bias</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt;"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;">of the researchers were responsible for this chaotic results. So when
Mark writes that, nowadays, the EPT of PV solar modules is typically 1 – 3
years, I cannot accept it as correct, simply because Mark says it. So I tried
to apply my own non-researcher faculty of </span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt;">logical thinking</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;">, the result of which
I have presented in my essay. In the 1990s, to my knowledge, no researcher was
taking the energy invested in back-up power stations into account.<br />
Mark gracefully agrees with my
assertion based only on logic that the EI figure of <i>all and any</i> <i>industrial</i> <i>product</i> (hence also of PV modules, wind
turbines, bicycles, toothpaste etc. etc. etc.) is bound to continuously
increase because of continuously increasing remoteness of new mines and wells
and continuously increasing difficulty in extracting non-renewable raw materials
and raw energy-materials (coal, oil, gas, uranium) from them. But then he makes
his argument incomprehensible by saying, "This is indeed a strong
limitation on the continued production of fossil fuels, but <i>is </i></span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt;">irrelevant</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt;"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;">to renewable energy resources: sunshine, wind, etc." Haven't I <i>distinguished</i> in my essay between the <i>sources</i> of energy <i>sunshine and wind</i> from the </span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt;">equipments</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt;"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;">(PV modules, wind turbines etc.) for producing electricity from sunshine
and wind? For the EI of the latter, i.e. the equipments, the difficulties
mentioned above are indeed very </span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt;">relevant</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;">. Their EI is continuously increasing and hence (it is simple
arithmetic), ceteris paribus, the EROEI of solar and wind electricity systems must
be continuously diminishing. This generally happens also to fossil and nuclear
energy systems and their EROEI.<br />
In statistics, there are many things
that cannot be measured satisfactorily and are therefore open to bias of the
researcher or the client. Opinion researchers e.g. can never know whether the
respondents to their questions are telling the truth. But also actually
measurable things like GDP, unemployment rate, total work force, inflation
rate, cost of living, poverty rate etc. can be distorted because of varying
definitions and/or wrong counting methods such as having too small a sample or
the sample being unrepresentative. This fact gave rise to the bon mot "I
do not believe any statistics other than those I have myself falsified." <br />
<br />
</span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt;">Hopes for the Future<br />
<br />
</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;">Mark writes: "…</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;">energy technologies
are made <i>increasingly </i>by using
renewable energy." I have heard of a solar panel factory in Freiburg,
Germany, (not a big one, maybe an experimental one), that derives all its
energy from the solar panels installed on the roof terrace of the factory.
Supposing the information is true, it does not prove Mark's point. The four
questions put by <i>foodstuff</i> (I only
quoted him) are not answered with this example (please read the four questions
once more!). Mark himself gives two examples – "A mining company in remote
Australia is currently building a solar farm to substitute for most of its
prolific diesel consumption, and the Tesla gigafactory for manufacturing
batteries will be completely powered by RE." In the first example, the <i>machines</i> in the factory are</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt;"> <i>using</i></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;"> electricity from solar panels; my informant did not say that they are </span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt;">being built</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;"> by means of electricity derived from solar panels. In the second
example (given by Mark himself) solar electricity will only </span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt;">substitute</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;"> diesel consumption. The huge machines used by the company for mining
activities will not be </span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt;">built</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;"> with the help of solar electricity. In the third example, the batteries
will be built by using solar electricity. Tesla is not claiming that the
gigafactory itself or the machines for manufacturing batteries will be built by
using solar electricity. And if one enquires a little further, one may find
that in the second and third case, the solar panels, subsidized by the state,
have been manufactured in China using dirty coal-electricity. Reg. the case of
the factory in Freiburg, I know that all the 6 major German solar panel
manufacturers have gone bankrupt.<br />
Basing himself on the examples he has
given, Mark thinks that "…</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt;"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;">although the current generation of RE technologies is being made mainly
by using fossil energy, the next generation will utilize RE to a greater degree
and so on until RE systems are made entirely by using RE." At another
place he writes, "The energy for mining the raw materials and building the
</span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt;">RE hardware</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;"> can in future be renewable and this transition has already begun."
I am not convinced that the end result of this transition will be the much
touted 100% RE for the whole industrial economy. Because Mark does not say with
what kind of energy the </span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt;">mining
machinery/hardware</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt;">,</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;"> the huge trucks, the caterpillars etc. will be built. On the whole, his
hopes appear to me as pure faith in miracles happening in future, wishful, not
rational thinking. Wishful thinking is an obstacle to making rational/realistic
political decisions.<br />
<br />
</span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt;">The Second Law of Thermodynamics
(Entropy Law) and Some Favorite Illusions of RE Enthusiasts<br />
<br />
</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;">Mark writes: "… there is no contradiction
between the Second Law of Thermodynamics and a global 100% renewable energy
(RE) system, so long as the Sun continues to shine." I am not sure I have
understood in which sense exactly he has written this. But it sounds like
saying there is no contradiction between faith in a good and almighty God and
the fact that there is evil in this world, no contradiction between the Genesis
story of the Bible and the Evolution theory of Darwin. Polemic apart, Mark
seems to forget again and again the distinction I made between sources of
energy and equipments of energy. Logically and plausibly, we may argue that </span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt;">humanity</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;"> will exist on the earth so long as the Sun continues to shine. But we
cannot say that the </span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt;">industrial
society</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;"> can continue to exist without
the fossil fuels and nonrenewable materials. <br />
I am not an engineer, not one of those who are
expected to know the Entropy Law. Yet I was compelled to learn the essence of
this law. During a private discussion on future energy and resources shortage,
an economist said (in the general sense): I do not understand why availability of
oil and minerals should be a problem; science says nothing gets lost in this
universe. That was obviously the First Law of Thermodynamics or the law of
conservation of matter and energy. So let us </span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt;">recycle</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;"> everything, all problems solved.
A friend of Johnny Rutherford, an RE enthusiast, once said, soon the whole
industrial economy would run without having to extract </span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: #c00000; font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">a single molecule more</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;">. To lay public it may seem plausible. For, after all, the Sun sends us15
000 times more energy than all the commercial energy we need, for free. I am a
bit surprised that Mark has not suggested this "solution" for all non-renewable
resources. But why can't we recycle everything? Because there is a </span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt;">contradiction between 100% recycling and
the Entropy Law</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;">.<br />
I have learnt that in the process of being
used in any production process, all energy and materials get </span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt;">dissipated</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt;">, </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;">more or less. Some part of it gets lost, that is, becomes unrecoverable.
From the state of being </span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt;">available</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;">, part of the materials used in production goes over to the state of
being </span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt;">unavailable</span></i><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;">.</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;"> In pure theory, of course, the whole quantity could be recovered and
brought back to their original available state, but only if we are prepared to
spend enough energy and materials for this work. In many cases, this process is,
in energy and material terms, too costly to be economically viable at all.
Again, it may be </span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt;">feasible</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt;"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;">but not </span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt;">viable</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt;">. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;">This explains why in real industry not everything is even attempted to
be recycled.<br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt;">Energy recycling</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;"> is practically impossible. A quantity of coal, gas, or petroleum, once
burnt, cannot be recycled, although the hydrogen and carbon atoms are not lost,
although they still exist somewhere in the atmosphere or the earth. They are
however so strongly dissipated that recycling them is only possible in a
laboratory by using immensely more energy than what can be recovered. Lack of knowledge
or understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics may lead some people to
cherish the illusion that, as commenter Mark Goldes writes, "24/7 cheap
green energy is being born. Engines designed to run on atmospheric (ambient)
heat instead of fuel. Ambient heat is a huge untapped reservoir of solar energy
available everywhere around the clock." There would be</span><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; font-family: "georgia" , "serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; letter-spacing: -0.05pt;"> "no combustion</span>"
in such engines.<br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;">
Another commenter, John Weber, who agrees with me, referred to the many </span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt;">high temperature processes</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;"> required in an industrial economy, especially in metallurgy and glass industries.
Now rays of the Sun reach us in a high entropy (i.e. highly dissipated) state.
This is why we have to spend a lot of energy and materials to first collect and
convert them into electricity before we can use them. If we want to use them in
metallurgical furnaces, we have to concentrate them further to a very much
higher temperature (strongly low entropy state). And at every stage of collection
and concentration, in every process of conversion (e.g. to liquid hydrogen),
and in the process of every piece of work done, </span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12.0pt;">some energy is inevitably lost</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;">, i.e. dissipated without being used. That solar modules have a lifespan
of 25 years, does not help much in overcoming these problems.<br />
<br />
These are essential points of our controversy. I hope <i>Insurge-Intelligence</i> readers would read also this contribution of
mine with interest. <br />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br />
<!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></span></div>
Saral Sarkarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14801618107395376433noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4729735685376119377.post-28365315528313255232017-07-28T02:24:00.000-07:002017-07-28T02:24:20.121-07:00The Global Crisis and Role of So-Called Renewable Energies in Solving It
<br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-indent: 0cm;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">Aspects and Causes of
the Crisis<br />
</span></i></b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"><br />
</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">The climate crisis is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">only one</i> aspect of the global crisis. Yet, generally speaking,
Western governments, media, politicians, NGOs, and publicists have been trying
to make us believe that it is the only dangerous and the only <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">global</i> crisis. It appears that for them
all other crises in the world are only partial or regional problems of
secondary importance. But this is a patently reductionist and superficial view
of the present global crisis. Consequently, also the policies that are being pursued
for solving the climate crisis are wrong.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The aforementioned agents of
worldwide climate politics plus the UN pressurized nearly all states of the
world to sign up to the Paris accord (2015). But no similar global effort is
being made to address, let alone solve, the global ecology crisis, the various,
seemingly unending civil wars and uprisings in the world, the terrorist attacks
of various kinds, increase in crime rates almost everywhere, the
unemployment-and-poverty problem in all poor and "developing"
countries, and the massive refugee-migrant crises in many parts of the world –
in short, the globally growing failed and failing states crisis. To my mind, this
is the right description of the critical state of the world today. The climate crisis
is only one part of it, and as a crisis, it is of recent origin. It is, of
course, also a major, but not a basic (i.e. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">deeper</i>),
cause of the global crisis.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To justify why I do not consider the
climate crisis to be a basic cause of the global crisis, I would like to refer
to the present situation in Mexico and Venezuela. They are very advanced
candidates for the title "failed state". In Mexico, in short, the
main cause of this situation is widespread drug-related crimes, in Venezuela it
is the totally wrong economic policy of successive governments of a
petro-socialist state. Or take for instance the two cases of South Sudan and
Central African Republic. People there are not suffering from any
climate-change-related drought or flooding.<br />
<br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Dubious
Politics of Climate Politicians</i><br />
</b><br />
Let us first examine the understanding that climate change is at present the
greatest danger to mankind and that, therefore, it should be addressed as the
most important task of governments.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Most government leaders and party
politicians admit that climate change is a big danger, but they are not
prepared to make an all-out effort to avert or mitigate it. Their topmost
policy-priority is continuous economic growth. For stabilizing global warming
below two degrees Celsius in the near future, they think it would suffice if
the world economy could gradually be made to run on an energy mix of various
sources, including some so-called renewables, and that, according to IPCC chief
economist Edenhofer,<sup>*</sup> would not cost the world more than 0.06
percent growth.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But radical climate NGOs and activist
groups maintain that the economies of highly industrialized countries such as
Germany could run 100% on the basis of "renewable energies". And they
say that a rapid replacement of fossil-carbon and nuclear energy industries
through renewable energy industries would create many new jobs, thus becoming
the main pillar of green growth. They have more or less concrete ideas for the
transition, even very detailed action plans for a quick transition to 100% "renewables".<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I can here take just one example,
only Bill McKibben's action plan entitled <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">A
World at War</i></span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">.<sup>1</sup></span><sup><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"> </span></sup><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">In it he calls for a "war"
effort – although "war" is here only a metaphor – as huge as the
American military and industrial mobilization for World War II. In naming his
enemy, however, McKibben makes the initial big error in analysis. He thinks it
is climate change. He imagines this enemy is committing a huge aggression
against us. Once he calls it an </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE; mso-themecolor: text1;">"enemy as powerful and inexorable as the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">laws of physics</i>."<br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Isn't
it absurd? Any person with some common sense knows that climate change is only
the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">result of global warming</i>. But
even global warming cannot be the "enemy". We know today that it is
man-made. For a moment McKibben also recognized his error. He himself mentions
in a half-sentence "</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE;">our insatiable desires as consumers</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE; mso-themecolor: text1;">," but he does not spell it out as the
ultimate cause of the malady.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Anyway, he demanded of the then US
government (and its future successors) that it should initiate and organize a
huge industrial mobilization to get "a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">hell
of a lot of factories" </i>built in order to turn out "thousands of
acres of solar panels, wind turbines the length of football fields, and
millions and millions of electric cars and buses." David Roberts<sup>2 </sup><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>made it vivid: </span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt 35.4pt; text-indent: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE; mso-themecolor: text1;">"</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">Well, have a
look at </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/s/600770/10-breakthrough-technologies-2016-solarcitys-gigafactory/"><span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;">Solar City’s gigafactory</span></a><span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;">, … . It will be the biggest solar
manufacturing facility … covering 27 acres, capable of cranking out 10,000
solar panels a day – a gigawatt’s worth in a year. At the height of its
transition to WWS [wind, water, solar], the US would have to build around 30 gigafactories
a year devoted to solar panels, and another 15 a year for wind turbines. That’s
45 of the biggest factories ever built, every year. That is [even for an
American] a mind-boggling pace of building, … ."</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 1em 0px; text-indent: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">Imagine now the </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">huge amount of shit</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"> this gigantic effort would simultaneously produce: the environmental
pollution, resource depletion, and waste that has to be dumped somewhere.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We may allow McKibben his war
metaphor in the name of poetic license. But if a general makes a wrong analysis
of the war situation or, said in the jargon of applied medical science, if the
diagnosis is wrong, the strategy or the prescribed medicine may do more harm
than good. McKibben's prescription, the huge dose of the wrong medicine – i.e.
a huge mobilization for the "Third World War" that climate change, he
imagines, is waging against us – is actually uncalled-for. There can be a much
lighter and more effective medicine to cure the severe illness based on his
more correct diagnosis, namely his half-sentence "</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE; mso-themecolor: text1;">our insatiable desires as<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> consumers</i>".<br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE; mso-themecolor: text1;">Any adherent of the old left (old socialism) of
any kind would speak of the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">capitalists</i>'
insatiable desire for profit and capital accumulation as the main cause of our
troubles. She would call upon us to wage class struggle.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"> But McKibben and climate activists like him are not old-leftists. They
are not willing to fight against capitalism, but only against climate change.
And this he wants to do, like all past and present old-leftists, by
technological means. Blinded by technological optimism, such people believe
that a 100% transition to "renewable" energies is possible. They say
we need more technology, not less; they assert we could overcome <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">all</i> crises and problems of mankind by
means of technology. I already heard in 1984 that the intermittency-and-storage
problem of renewable energies can be easily solved, namely by means of
batteries and liquid hydrogen.<br />
<br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Critique
of technological solutions<br />
</i></b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><br />
</i>Such activists are suffering from some illusions. They appear not to know
the most inexorable of all the laws of physics, namely the </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Second Law of Thermodynamics</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"> (AKA the </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Entropy Law</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">that also applies to matter). In reality, so-called renewable energies
are neither renewable nor clean. One makes this mistake due to a logical error
that must be rectified. We have to differentiate between <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">sources</i> of energy and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">equipments</i>
needed to convert them into electricity and heat. Sunshine, wind, and flowing
water are <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">sources</i> that will still be
there after Homo sapiens has disappeared from the surface of the earth and will
still supply useful energies to the next hominid species– e.g. as driver of
sailing boats and as supplier of warmth. So they indeed are renewable and also
clean. But the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">equipments</i> needed to
generate <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">electricity</i> from these
sources are made of materials that are nonrenewable. And the energy used to
produce these material things comes till today for the most part from
fossil-carbon and nuclear fuels, both of which are nonrenewable and dirty. So
how can solar, wind and hydro-electricity be called renewable and clean? And
how can electric cars be preferable to combustion engine cars if the batteries
made of nonrenewable materials store nonrenewable and unclean electricity?<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Moreover, these so-called renewable
energies are not </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">viable</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">, although they are </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">feasible</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">. Suppose tomorrow, accepting the demand of the movements, all states
decide to leave all the still unextracted fossil-carbon and nuclear fuels in
the ground. How will then the said equipments be manufactured/built?<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And the equipments that have already
been manufactured/built and are supplying electricity have a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">lifespan</i> of 20-30 years. When they are
no longer working and must be replaced, the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">second
generation</i> thereof cannot be manufactured/built, because then, we shall not
have any fossil or nuclear energy to be used. Either the fossil-carbon and
nuclear fission materials are exhausted or our governments have decided to
leave them in the ground. To make the point clear, let me quote an impatient
discussant, who, using the pseudonym "foodstuff", put the following
questions to protagonists of the so-called renewable energies:<sup>3</sup></span></div>
<br />
<div align="left" style="background: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 4.45pt 36pt; text-align: left;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">"I
still want to know if the following can be done:</span></div>
<br />
<div align="left" style="background: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 4.45pt 36pt; text-align: left;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">1.
Mine the raw materials using equipment powered by solar panels.<br />
2. Transport and convert metal ores, e.g. bauxite-aluminum, using equipment run
by solar panels and in a factory built using the energy from solar panels.<br />
3. Make the finished panels in a factory run by solar panels, including
building and maintaining the factory.<br />
4. Transport, install and maintain the solar panels using equipment running on
solar panels.<br />
All this is presently being done [mainly] with the energy from fossil fuels.
How will it be done when they are gone?"</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 1em 0px; text-indent: 0cm;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">EROEI<br />
</span></i></b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"><br />
</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">Protagonists of 100% "renewable
energies" say: we must use a large part of the generated renewable energies
for producing the equipment needed for producing the second generation of
equipment for producing renewable energies. And so it will go on and on. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Here comes the crucial question of </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">EROEI</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"> (Energy Return on Energy Invested or </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">energy balance</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">). Assuming that the
first generation equipments do produce some <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">net
energy</i>, i.e. EROEI is positive, how large is the amount of this net energy?
Let us Remember, hundreds of millions of households and enterprises producing
consumer goods will first consume electricity from this source. Will there be
anything left for investing in production of all the equipments, i.e. producing
and reproducing everything necessary for running an industrial economy?<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is no certainty in this
question. Many experts who tried to measure it expressed doubt that the EROEI
of solar energy technology is positive. Why is the matter so uncertain?<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">gross</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"> ER (energy return) part of the question is easy to answer, and
correctly, if you have a good meter attached to the solar panel. But how do you
measure the EI (energy invested) part of the question? What the experts do is
actually guesstimating. Here bias starts playing a role. So I answer the
question in a different, and I think more convincing, way:<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Since almost all raw materials and
energy that are till today used to produce the required equipments are
nonrenewable, the old mines and wells of the same gradually get exhausted.
Miners must then go to <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">ever remoter and
ever more difficult places</i> to extract them out of new mines/wells. That
means, energy invested (EI) in fuels and minerals </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">progressively
increases</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">. That means EI – not only for
energy equipments but also for any industrial product – continuously increases.
Remember, we are not talking of </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">prices</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">money costs</i></span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"> which depend on many variable factors, but of EI, of </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">energy cost</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"> of a product. For example, money cost of production of solar panels
would fall further, and hence also their price, if production is transferred
from China to, say, Bangladesh, where wages are lower than in China.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In case of minerals such as copper
and Nickel we are digging deeper and deeper and going to ever hotter and
icy-colder deserts and polar regions. The copper mine of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Chuquicamata</i> in Chile's Atacama desert is in the meantime so deep
that the big heavy trucks that bring the ore to the surface can only be seen
like toys down below. For oil, we are since long boring in deep seabed.
Recently, geologists have found a mountain containing huge quantities of
extremely rare cadmium telluride, the material that can greatly increase the
efficiency of solar cells. But it stands at a depth of 1000 meters down in the
Atlantic Ocean. If that is the objective situation, no small innovation
improving the ER side can, I think, in the long run offset the </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">secular
trend</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"> of rising energy costs (EI). For such small
innovations cannot overcome the two <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">cosmological
constants</i> involved here, namely (1) the intensity of solar radiation
reaching the surface of the earth at any particular place – which is very low,
so that organisms can survive – and (2) the fact that the sun does not shine in
the night.<sup>4<br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><br />
</b></sup><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Conclusion–<br />
Perspective on a Future Sustainable Society<br />
</i></b><u><br />
</u></span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE; mso-themecolor: text1;">I hope now it has become
clear to my readers that "renewable energies" cannot play any role in
solving the multifaceted global crisis of today and that, on the contrary,
investing in these technologies is a waste of time, effort, energy and, most
important of all, scarce resources. If scientists and engineers were honest,
they should say that the only <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">really</i>
renewable and clean sources of energy, apart from our own physical energy, are <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">wood</i> and other <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">biomass products</i> for fire, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">wind
</i>for sailing boats and wind mills, and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">flowing
water</i> in rivers and streams for water mills – the last two only for
generating <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">kinetic</i> energy. And, if we
are prepared to exploit other living beings, then also the muscle power of
domestic animals.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Humanity has lived for thousands of
years with only such energies. In a not so distant future, we have to be
satisfied with that. But that would be impossible with 9+ billions of us. Let
me quote here an <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">impossibility theorem</i>
that I formulated some time ago: </span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 1em 0px 1em 35.4pt; mso-add-space: auto; text-indent: 0cm;">
<i><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: #c00000; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">It is impossible to fulfill the
continuously growing "needs", demands, wishes, aspirations and
ambitions of a continuously growing world population while
our resource base is continuously dwindling and the ability
of nature to absorb man-made pollution is continuously diminishing. It is
a lunatic idea that in a finite world infinite growth is possible.</span></i></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-indent: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE; mso-themecolor: text1;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Our top-priority <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">political tasks today</i> and for a
transition period of uncertain duration would therefore be (a) to start a
massive campaign for a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">population control</i>
program with the long-term goal of bringing down the world population of homo
sapiens to, say, two billions; (b) a campaign for <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">reducing consumption</i> simultaneously with a campaign against the
growth ideology; (c) propagating alternative conceptions of peaceful human
societies (my own preference is an <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">eco-socialist
society</i>); (d) a campaign to let wild forests and the number of wild animals
expand.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These are very broadly defined tasks.
Details need to be worked out, which however can only be done if many people
show interest. <br />
<br />
</span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-themecolor: text1;">Notes
and References<br />
</span></i></b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-themecolor: text1;"><br />
</span></i><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-themecolor: text1;">*
Edenhofer, Ottmar & Michael Jacob (2017) <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Klimapolitik. Ziele, Konflikte, Lösungen</i>. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">Munich: C. H. Beck, P. 52.<br />
<br />
1. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-language: DE; mso-themecolor: text1;">McKibben, Bill (2016): A World at War <br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><a href="http://forhumanliberation.blogspot.de/2016/08/2418-bill-mckibben-world-at-war.html"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-language: DE; mso-themecolor: text1;">http://forhumanliberation.blogspot.de/2016/08/2418-bill-mckibben-world-at-war.html</span></a><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">2. Roberts, David (2016): Climate Justice Policy and
the Metaphor of War<br />
</span><a href="http://forhumanliberation.blogspot.de/2016/08/2419-climate-justice-policy-and.html"><span style="color: black;">http://forhumanliberation.blogspot.de/2016/08/2419-climate-justice-policy-and.html</span></a><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">3. "foodstuff", comment as part of the
discussion on Ugo Bardi's article. See:<br />
<br />
Bardi, Ugo (2016)"But what's the REAL energy return of photovoltaic
energy?" in <i>Cassandra's Legacy (online)</i>.<br />
<br />
</span><span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;">4. This presentation on
the EROEI of solar energy technologies is based on<br />
</span><span style="color: black;"><br />
Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas (1978): "Technology Assessment. The Case of the
Direct Use of Solar Energy";<br />
<br />
</span><a href="http://www.peakoilindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Georgescu-Roegen-The-Case-of-the-Direct-Use-of-Solar-Energy.pdf"><span style="color: #336699; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-language: DE;">http://www.peakoilindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Georgescu-Roegen-The-Case-of-the-Direct-Use-of-Solar-Energy.pdf</span></a><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;">I discussed all these matters
more thoroughly in my book <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Eco-Socialism
or Eco-Capitalism? </i>(1999). London: Zed Books.<br />
<br />
For my other, shorter, writings on similar issues, see my blog-site:<br />
</span><a href="http://www.eco-socialist.blogspot.com/"><span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;">www.eco-socialist.blogspot.com</span></a></span></div>
Saral Sarkarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14801618107395376433noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4729735685376119377.post-25414106570740257062017-07-19T04:02:00.000-07:002017-07-19T04:02:11.968-07:00Climate Change -- the Worst-Case Scenarios. Can Something Be Done?<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-US">19.07.2017<br />
<br />
Dear friends,<br />
<br />
just a few days ago, I read a very interesting essay by an American journalist,
who interviewed several top-level climate scientists – among them some who had actually
discovered <span style="color: #c00000;">global warming, climate change</span>
and related facts in the 1980s and thereafter. In his essay, David Wallace-Wells,
the author, summarizes what he heard from these scientists and what he had read
on the subject. In it he depicts the <span style="color: #c00000;">worst-case
scenarios</span> that would emerge if the worst fears of the climate scientists
come true. <br />
The essay has gone viral, has been
read by over 2 Million people and commented on by over 400 people including
myself. I think all political activists, especially those leaders in politics
and the media who make or influence policy, should read it.<br />
I admire the author for writing this
important text. But I also find it deficient in its concluding part, in which
he only repeats the technological optimism of the scientists. <br />
Below I give you the links to the
article and the text of my comment.<br />
<br />
With best wishes <br />
<br />
Saral Sarkar<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-US"><a href="http://www.ecologise.in/2017/07/15/viral-essay-uninhabitable-earth/">http://www.ecologise.in/2017/07/15/viral-essay-uninhabitable-earth/</a><br />
<br />
or<br />
<br />
<a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html">http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html</a><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #c00000;">My comment</span>:<br />
<br />
It is a very good piece of work. My sincere thanks to Wallace-Wells for
imparting to us, activists and non-scientists, all the relevant knowledge we
need. Yet, the conclusion is disappointing. Here he does not express his own
thoughts, but only reproduces the optimism of the scientists he interviewed,
which he seemingly shares.<br />
After we have learnt all that, the
question remains: what <i>can</i> and should
be done? Here, I think, the author makes several mistakes:<br />
(1) He mixes up discovery and
invention, science and engineering. The scientists and the author have
presented here much information about discoveries. They discovered the hole in
the ozone layer. But some engineering and political decision-making were
necessary to patch it up, e.g., by replacing one gas, CFC, with another, so
that consumers did not have to forgo a single refrigerator. The Apollo Program
was a huge feat of engineering that enabled man to land on the moon – at the
cost of enormous amounts of energy and materials plus enormous amounts of carbon
emission and other pollutions. All engineering feats, all increases in
production increase GHG emission and pollution.<br />
(2)</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10pt;"> </span><span lang="EN-US">He writes about "our <i>debt to nature</i>". Wonderful! But how do you pay <i>this kind</i> of a debt back and become
debt-free? Do you then, as usual in usual kinds of debt, undertake new
engineering projects and increase production and income? In real life, in
certain situations, the debtor simply cannot increase his production/income.
Then he reduces his consumption in order to pay off the debt. Our (carbon) debt
to nature is not <i>a usual kind of debt</i>.
It can only be paid off by reducing carbon emission, i.e. by reducing
production. Through its Apollo Program, humanity did not reduce its carbon debt
to nature. On the contrary. <br />
In the text I did not find any
mention of renewable energy technologies, but spraying sulfur dioxide in the
atmosphere and carbon capturing were mentioned. Application of all these
technologies would entail producing more CO<sub>2 </sub>with uncertain results.
To place our hope in such technologies is "another form of delusion</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10pt;">."<br />
</span><span lang="EN-US"> (3) Instead of relying on
engineering, we should rely more on <i>social
or socio-political engineering.</i> We should bring our ingenuity to bear on
this area.<br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10pt;"> </span><span lang="EN-US">Wallace-wells
says reduced global output would lead to reduced</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10pt;"> </span><span lang="EN-US">per capita GDP. But <i>per capita</i> GDP is a function of both GDP and <i>population size</i>. If we ourselves collectively start a dual project
of deliberately reducing global output and, simultaneously, reducing global population
size, then the pain would be bearable. I believe such a social-engineering
project would have more and quicker effect than the hard engineering ones the
scientists are dreaming of. Reducing consumption in the rich countries and
raising more taxes there to be channeled to reforestation and population
control projects in the poor countries would not only be just but also help
immediately. <br />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br />
<!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
Saral Sarkarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14801618107395376433noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4729735685376119377.post-32436810173597951942017-06-09T13:21:00.002-07:002017-06-09T13:21:55.249-07:00What is Eco-Socialism, Who is an Eco-Socialist
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br />
</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">A few days ago I
read a longish interview that Prof. John Bellamy Foster.<sup><span style="font-size: x-small;">1</span></sup> had given to
a leftist journal called <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Left Voice</i>
(LV). Prof. Foster is a renowned American Marxist scholar and a leading eco-socialist
theoretician. Among many other things, he expressed in the interview his high
regard for Naomi Klein, who had, 2–3 years ago, published a best-seller
entitled <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">This Changes Everything
–Capitalism vs. the Climate</i>. That would not have been any problem for
anybody. But Prof. Foster also said: "</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: DE; mso-themecolor: text1;">She is aligned with eco-socialism".</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">
What the phrase "aligned with" actually meant was not clear. So
Richard Smith, another renowned American eco-socialist, took it as meaning
Klein is an eco-socialist. According to Smith, who has read Klein's 576 page
book, she is not an eco-socialist. He criticized Prof. Foster for thinking so, probably
meaning thereby also that Foster was thus diluting the content of eco-socialism.<sup><span style="font-size: x-small;">2<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></sup>Thereafter several comments appeared in
the website of the forum<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> the Simpler Way</i>.<sup><span style="font-size: x-small;">3</span></sup>
I too published there my first quick response to the debate. Below I am posting
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">a revised
and expanded version </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">of my response. <br />
<br />
<br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">It is not really important
to know whether or not Klein is an eco-socialist. There are probably a few
hundred leading, prominent and intellectual activists in the movement to
prevent the worsening of climate change (call it whatever you will) or any
other popular environmental movement. It is not possible to know what all they
have written or said or done. Many people join such <span style="color: #c00000;">one-point
movements</span> because they support the movement's particular limited cause –
demand something or prevent something. That is good. Also we eco-socialists
should join them if we think they deserve our support. But parallel to such
popular one-point movements, it is necessary to build up a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">really</i> eco-socialist movement. Only in such a movement, if and when
it emerges, will it be useful, even necessary, to know who is a true
eco-socialist. For that, however, it is necessary first to have clarity about
the <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: #c00000;">essential points and convictions of eco-socialism.<br />
</span></i></b><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the early 1970s,
when I read the book <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Limits to Growth</i>,
I had exactly such a thought as Klein expressed in the phrase "this changes
everything". I was in those days a supporter/friend of political
activists, whose parties and groups were roughly called CPI
(Marxists-Leninist).Their basic theory ("ism") was called, broadly
speaking, Marxism-Leninism-Mao-Tse-Tung-Thought. The common point between them
and me was only that they and I were all socialists.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After reading <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Limits to Growth</i>, I exclaimed: My God, if that is all true, then it
changes everything.<sup><span style="font-size: x-small;">4</span></sup> But was it all true? What I read there was, for
me at least, convincing. After all, nobody could deny that non-renewable
resources are limited and would sooner or later be exhausted, that even
renewable resources such as fresh water and fertile land are available in
limited supply.<sup><span style="font-size: x-small;">5</span></sup> And we could see that even in a poor, rock-bottom
low-wage country like ours not everything could be recycled. Every city had to
have a waste disposal site.<sup><span style="font-size: x-small;">6</span></sup> A few years later, I read in a serious
German journal that even Soviet communist scientists had said that the
conclusions of the report to the Club of Rome were irrefutable. I thought:
well, then it is impossible to build up a socialist society in India. I/we had
in those days no other conception of a socialist society than the one we had received
from Marx, Lenin, Mao and their disciples: (put briefly) in regard to
production, <span style="color: #c00000;">prosperity through development of the
productive forces</span>; in regard to distribution, from each according to his
ability, to each according to his need; in regard to exercise of power, governance
through the associated producers etc. It was simply a conception of </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">cornucopian
socialism.<br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That was the beginning. I started
distancing myself from Marxism, Leninism and Maoism, although I and the Marxist-Leninist-Maoists
I knew remained friends at the personal level. More thinking and more reading
led me to eco-socialism. All that took place in the 1970s, before any knowledge
of climate change existed. Now think of this: Klein, a 45 year old highly educated
Western journalist, suddenly had her awakening in the second decade of the 21<sup><span style="font-size: x-small;">st</span></sup>
century, when she learnt something about climate change, and she concluded that
capitalism is the enemy of our planet's climate. And she wrote a 576 page book on
the subject. And there is so much tam-tam about it.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Let us now come to the <span style="color: #c00000;">essential points of eco-socialism. </span><span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;">I think,</span><span style="color: #c00000;"> </span><span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;">they are the </span><span style="color: #c00000;">convictions</span><span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;"> that: (1) there are limits to growth – not only to economic but also to
population growth<sup><span style="font-size: x-small;">7</span></sup>; (2) we have already overshot these limits to a
dangerous level; (3) there are </span><span style="color: #c00000;">no
technological solutions</span><span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;">
to the global resource and pollution problems;<sup><span style="font-size: x-small;">8 </span></sup>(4) therefore the
world economy must now be subjected to a process of deliberate </span><span style="color: #c00000;">contraction</span><span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;"> and gradually brought to a </span><span style="color: #c00000;">sustainable
steady state</span><span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;">; (5) this
contraction must proceed in a </span><span style="color: #c00000;">planned way</span><span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;">, otherwise human societies would
collapse one after the other; (6) both the burdens and benefits of economic
contraction must be distributed </span><span style="color: #c00000;">equitably</span><span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;">; otherwise citizens would not accept
the planned contraction; (7) the</span><span style="color: #c00000;"> goal</span><span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;"> must be to reach a sustainable</span><span style="color: #c00000;"> and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">egalitarian</i>
</span><span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;">steady-state economy and society
at a much lower level than today's.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Taken together, these essential
points/convictions may be called </span><span style="color: #c00000;">eco-socialism</span><span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;">. Let those who have read Klein's book
now say whether she may be considered to be aligned with eco-socialism. I have
more important things to do. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, before concluding this text,
I would like to point out </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: #c00000;">a few flaws</span></i></b><span style="color: #c00000;"> in this debate </span><span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;">between Bellamy Foster and Smith.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(1) Smith maintains, both in the
title of his critical comment and further down, that "Klein is … not an </span><span style="color: #c00000;">eco-socialist</span><span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;">". But Bellamy Foster has reduced the question to </span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">"</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Is Klein a socialist?"</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"> That is not good for creating clarity. For if the two terms did not
mean different things, there would not have been any need to coin the new term <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">eco-socialism</i> in the first place. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The determinant element in the
concept <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">eco-socialism</i> is the prefix <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">eco. </i>And that means the rejection of </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">industrialism</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">To be a good socialist one only needs to rejects </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">capitalism.
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">But to be an eco-socialist one must also reject
industrialism as a future perspective for mankind, and agree to a program of </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">de-industrialization</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"> (often clumsily called </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">de-growth</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">) – of at least the overdeveloped countries to start with. I do not see
this difference taken up in the debate. (It won't do, however, if you agree merely
to transfer the excessively polluting and resource-and-labor-intensive
industries to China, India and other relatively under-developed countries, and
then import the products of the same industries for consumption at home.)<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(2) Bellamy Foster writes that Klein </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">defended
"Hugo Chávez’s</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> 21st century socialism </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">in Venezuela." This
information is irrelevant for the debate. No sensible person could ever think
that "Hugo Chávez’s 21st century socialism." was socialism. I always
called it </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">petro-socialism,</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">
which totally depended on the country's oil bonanza. Chavez only distributed
the revenues from it more equitably. As a result of this good deed, Venezuelans
forgot how to produce food on their own land. Chavez was a good man, that's
all.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(3) Also irrelevant, not important,
is the information that "she [Klein] is openly anti-capitalist." One
can rail at capitalism and yet not be a socialist. Example: Pope Francis of
Rome. Moreover, even if one is a socialist, one is not necessarily aligned with
eco-socialism.<br />
<br />
<br />
</span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Notes and References<br />
<br />
</span></i></b><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">1. See </span><a href="http://climateandcapitalism.com/2017/04/11/foster-a-resistance-movement-for-the-planet/"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">http://climateandcapitalism.com/2017/04/11/foster-a-resistance-movement-for-the-planet/</span></span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br />
<br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">2. For Smith's critique and Foster's response, see
</span><a href="http://climateandcapitalism.com/2017/05/04/significance-naomi-klein-ecosocialist-exchange/"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">http://climateandcapitalism.com/2017/05/04/significance-naomi-klein-ecosocialist-exchange/</span></span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br />
<br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">3. See them in </span><a href="https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/thesimplerway"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/thesimplerway</span></span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"><br />
4. Some years later, after reading Thomas Kuhn's <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Structure of Scientific Revolution,</i> I started using the term "</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">paradigm
shift</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">" in the sense that it changed my whole
line of thinking.<br />
<br />
5. Later I came to regard also </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">nature's ability to absorb human-made
pollution</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"> as a resource</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">And that too is limited.<br />
<br />
6. In those days, in the environmental movement, there was much glib talk about
garbage being actually "resources stored at a wrong place". Even a
thinker like the late André Gorz wrote that we could recycle almost everything.
Much later did I learn – thanks to Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen – why that was
impossible, and why, if theoretically possible, it was not economically viable.
It was because the </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">entropy law</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"> also applied
to matter (materials).<br />
<br />
7. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Population growth</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"> has for a long time
been a taboo topic for almost all leftists, progressive-liberals, and Marxists.
That is actually the worst of all the theory-legacies of Marx, Engels and
Lenin. I think those who do not understand the importance of the population
issue have not understood the essence of ecology. But 134 years after Marx's
death, things are changing. Today, many eco-socialists understand that they
cannot call for de-growth and let exponential population growth go on. <br />
<br />
8. All ideas of </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">technological solutions</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"> such as raising resource efficiency, de-coupling of economic growth
from resource consumption, </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">renewable energies</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;"> (solar, wind etc.) are bunkum. Technological solutions can be helpful
for solving one problem of one particular firm or region, but not for solving </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">global
ecological and resource problems. Because if you in this way solve one problem
at one place, that would generate a new problem at another place.<br />
<br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">NB.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: text1;">
All these points have been thoroughly discussed in my book <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Eco-Socialism or Eco-Capitalism? – A critical Analysis of Humanity's
Fundamental Choices. </i>1999, Zed Books, London.<br />
<br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[endif]--></span><br />
Saral Sarkarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14801618107395376433noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4729735685376119377.post-49633701724283932132017-05-20T02:55:00.000-07:002017-05-20T02:55:46.302-07:00Giving Rights to Trees. But Forgetting the Forests
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-indent: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: DE;">Some four weeks ago, I posted my text on the "Rights
of Rivers" (see below!), with which I had responded to a discussion that
was going on in a google discussion group called Radical Ecological Democratic
List. That was the beginning of another discussion in the said group: on the
right to life of individual chimpanzees. A participant had informed us earlier that
in the USA, a lawyer-philosopher had won court cases which he had lodged on
behalf of two chimpanzees. The court ruled that the two chimps deserved a
peaceful retired life after serving humans for many years.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I responded with the following text:<br />
<br />
Once more<br />
<span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;">reg</span>. Rights and duties of
rivers, trees, chimps, elephants and ad inifinitum.<br />
Or <br />
<span style="color: #c00000;">Giving rights to trees. But forgetting the forests
that are destroyed<br />
<br />
</span><br />
This is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">again</i> a very abstract
discussion. Of course, also interesting as a piece of news on the idiosyncrasies
and fads of a few particular lawyer-philosophers. Maybe this way they can do
good to a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">particular</i> chimp or two,
whom they have come to love after coming to personally know them, by chance
(Incidentally, they surely themselves feel well. Who does not, if she can do
something good?). But what should radical ecological<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> activists</i>, nature lovers and animal lovers <span style="color: #c00000;">in general</span> say? Those who are neither a lawyer nor have ever
come to love a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">particular </i>chimp?</span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> Prof. Singer at least philosophized
on liberating <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">the animals, all animals</i>,
wanted to win human rights for <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">all</i>
big apes, because they are so much like us.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I remember a film entitled <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Free Willy</i>. The activist boy, who fought
for freeing Willy, had come to love this particular killer whale. But killer
whales are not as intelligent as chimps. So what? I love this killer whale.
Good film, touched the viewers' heart. But what about thousands of whales that
are still being killed by whalers of Norway and Japan? At least some Americans
and Europeans are trying to save them. But the chimps and gorillas of Africa
who are not fortunate enough to be loved by some particular white humans?
Hundreds of them are being killed for their meat (called bush meat) by humans
of Africa. This is a very difficult issue. Even Arne Naess, the famous original
philosopher (not an activist) of Deep Ecology could not but notice the problem.
He wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt 35.4pt; text-indent: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">"When we attempt to live out our
relationship with other living beings, difficult questions naturally arise. …
Our apprehension of the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">actual conditions</i>
under which we live our own lives … make it crystal clear that we have to
injure and kill, in other words, actively hinder the self-unfolding of other
living beings." (emphasis added).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-indent: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">We can of course tell Africans of the Sahel zone, they should, because
they could, become vegetarians. But can we say that to the Inuits of Greenland?<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How many of us are committed to saving
the remaining <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">living space</i> of the
remaining chimps and gorillas of the African jungle, that of the remaining
Orangutans of the rain forests of Borneo, that of the majestic lions and great
elephants of the African Savanna, and that of the Indian elephants of the
Terrai region? Theoretically, all of us. But, in reality, these animals are
rapidly losing their living space to humans because, firstly, the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">latter's total number</i> is growing
exponentially, because, secondly, in these poor underdeveloped regions of the
world, growing numbers of farmers need more and more land, thirdly, because
growing numbers of cattle breeders need more and more grazing land. And, last
but not least, because also capitalist agri-corporations must expand or perish.
Soon there will be "no room for wild animals" any more.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How long will we keep our eyes shut
and "pretend that we just do not see" the real, deeper causes of the
killings of lions and elephants and rhinos and gorillas and chimps? Those very
few of leftists who still call themselves communists or Marxists do talk about
capitalism being the real culprit. But they see red if anybody mentions
population growth being one of the deeper causes. But also most ecology
activists do not raise the population issue. Why? Because, I guess, they are
humanists. Humanists after all cannot see humanty as the culprit. Moreover,
they are protagonists of human rights, and reproductive rights and democratic
rights, and what have you, of everybody and all peoples and cultures of the
world. So they suggest all kinds of technological fixes and/or small projects for
all ecological problems, but never utter the P word. But <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: #c00000;">radical</span></i> ecologists? When will we
say openly and loudly that the growing number of us humans is another
"culprit"? They after all know very well the connection between the
total number of humans and the total number of the other species, that they are
inversely proportional. <span style="color: #c00000;">Paul Ehrlich</span>, a
famous American biologist, wrote addressing people like us, leftists and/or
radical ecologists: "Whatever [be] your cause, it is a lost cause, unless
we control population [growth]". <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Compared to the overall situation
today, are not the cases of individual chimps, </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: DE;">Tommy, Kiko, Hercules, and Leo, much ado about
insignificant things? These animals are after all not being brutally
eliminated! Are not these cases distracting us from the great tasks of today? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
Saral Sarkarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14801618107395376433noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4729735685376119377.post-34041308799590695612017-04-28T12:29:00.003-07:002017-04-28T12:29:57.140-07:00Rights of Rivers? -- Are They Realizable?
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-indent: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Some two weeks ago I read an interesting article in which it was
reported that on March 20 a High Court judge of a province of India called
Uttarakhand has issued a ruling that the rivers Ganga and Jamuna, considered
holy by the Hindus, and their tributaries</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: DE;"> </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: DE;">have </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: DE;">rights as a ‘juristic/legal </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: DE; mso-themecolor: text1;">person/living entity’. Five days before this,
the New Zealand Parliament had passed into law the Te Awa Tupua Bill, which
gives the Whanganui river and ecosystem legal personality, guaranteeing its
‘health and well-being’.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The purpose of the authors of the
said article – Ashish Kothari and Shrishtee Bajpai – was not just to report
about these cases. They analysed the implications of the ruling on the Ganga
and Jamuna and speculated on the possibility and difficulties of implementing
the ruling in the real world. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I read the article with great
interest, because, in the mid 1990s, I had read a few eco-philosophical texts
of the deep ecology school. The article triggered in my head further thoughts,
which I wrote down and posted as a short comment. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Later, the article gave rise to a
long chain of letters in a google discussion group, in which the contributors further
speculated on the possibility or otherwise of making the ruling of the
Uttarakhand High Court judge operational.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A few days ago, I had been admitted
in this google group as a member. So I got all the letters. I read them and
found them too abstract. Then I too made a contribution to the discussion. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Below, I first give the link to the
article of Kothari and Bajpai. Then you will find my comment on the article
posted in the same journal. Thereafter I append my contribution to the
discussion in the google-group.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I request my readers to first read
the article of Kothari and Bajpai, and thereafter my two texts.<br />
<br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><a href="http://www.ecologise.in/2017/04/10/mean-river-rights/"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="color: blue;">http://www.ecologise.in/2017/04/10/mean-river-rights/</span></span></a><br />
<br />
</span><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: DE;">Saral' Comments on the Article<br />
</span></i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-fareast-language: DE;"><br />
</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-fareast-language: DE;">Many thanks to
Kothari and Bajpai for this highly informative article. It not only informs but
also points out the contradictions involved in this particular piece of court
ruling. However, the judges and our authors have opened a <i>Pandora's Box, </i>that
cannot be closed without killing many "holy cows". That is to say,
they have revealed several more <i>fundamental</i> contradictions that <i>sincere</i>
ecological activists know about since long. Let me mention here just the two
most fundamental ones: (1) that between economic development per se and
protection of the rest of nature, and (2) that between modern humans as a whole
and the rest of nature.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For citizens of India it should be of
interest to know that already before 1947, Gandhiji and Nehruji had a very
serious dispute on the question of development, which Gandhiji totally rejected
and which Nehruji wholeheartedly promoted. They kept their related
correspondence under lock and key for fear that, if published, it would split
the independence movement<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As regards the other contradiction,
it relates to the <i>number</i> of humans living in any habitat or the whole
world (taken as one habitat) and their conception of basic <i>needs</i> and
good living. Neither the 1.3 billion humans in India nor the 7.5 billion humans
in the world can live, let alone live well, without degrading every part of
nature. You simply cannot eat the cake and have it too. <br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Not Gandhiji, nor the vegetarians of
India, but Arne Naess and his followers who initiated the Deep Ecology movement
in the West formulated the first of the eight principles of the Deep Ecology
Platform as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 13.3pt 35.4pt; mso-add-space: auto; text-indent: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-fareast-language: DE;">"The well-being and flourishing of human
and nonhuman Life on Earth have value in themselves (synonymous: intrinsic
value, inherent value). These values are <i>independent of the usefulness of
the nonhuman world for human purposes.</i>"<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 1em 0px 13.3pt; mso-add-space: auto; text-indent: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-fareast-language: DE;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Can we resolve these contradictions through
a compromise? That may be possible, but surely not just through a ruling of a
court. May I request Kothari and Bajpai to contribute another, a longish,
article on these questions? <br />
<br />
</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: DE; mso-themecolor: text1;">-----------------<br />
<br />
</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: DE;">Saral's
Contribution to the google group Discussion, dt.</span></i><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">27.04.2017<br />
</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE;"><br />
</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I have been reading
this discussion from the very beginning, i.e. beginning with the article of
Ashish and Ms. Bajpai, on which I commented in www.ecologies.in.* In the
meantime so many things have been said by so many participants that I do not
remember who said what. That is however unimportant, because my following
comments are very general.<br />
<br />
(1) The terms <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">right</i> and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">duty </i>are<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> necessarily anthropocentric. </i>Neither inanimate beings, such as
rivers and mountains and nature reserves nor animals other than humans have such
concepts in their head, let alone have the ability to articulate them. So,
logically, it is only humans who can give rights to other humans and pronounce
duties of humans to fellow humans and inanimate entities.<br />
<br />
(2) The whole discussion is too abstract, so abstract that it is of little use
either for government action or for activities of political groups. A right or
a duty does not at all become more real or useful if a judge of a court
declares it in a ruling.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Universal Declaration of Human
Rights was pronounced in 1948 by humans (UNO) for humans. But, as we know, till
today, even such <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: #c00000;">concrete</span></i>
human rights mostly remain on paper, unrealized. Why? Because, as of today, in
any big society, say all inhabitants of a village in India, the humans are
divided in various interest groups (call it class, caste, religious group,
gender or whatever). A particular human right is not in the interest of all
members of a society.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Among humans, an aggrieved person or
a group of persons can fight for her/his right. But what can a river do, or a
mountain, or a tract of land (nature reserve)? Humans, who are supposed to
fight for the rights of a river etc. are themselves divided on the basis of
their own <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: #c00000;">material
interests</span>.<br />
<br />
</i>(3) This is so because water, fertility of land, minerals in or below a
mountain are <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: #c00000;">resources</span></i>
needed by humans.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I remember, as early as in the 1950s
(or the 1960s), India and East Pakistan (since 1971 called Bangladesh) fought
on the question of right to use the waters of the Ganga. India wanted to build
a barrage on the river at Farracka to divert water to the port of Kolkata which
was rapidly silting. East Pakistan was worried about the navigability of the
river on which the port of Khulna lay.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the meantime, the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: #c00000;">population</span></i>
of both countries have tripled or quadrupled and their <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: #c00000;">needs</span></i> have skyrocketed and even
now growing exponentially.<br />
<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In conclusion, I would say if we
political activists want to <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: #c00000;">do something</span></i> about the undeniably abstract
rights of such inanimate entities, we should rather pay more attention to the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: #c00000;">practical</span></i>
questions of material interests of humans, interest conflicts among them,
resource and consumption needs of humans, and especially the growing human
population.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Sometime back I formulated an <span style="color: #c00000;">impossibility theorem</span>. It is as follows:<br />
<br />
</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;">It is impossible to
fulfill the continuously growing demands, wishes, aspirations and ambitions of
a continuously growing world population while our <span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">resource</span> <span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">base</span> is
continuously dwindling and the <span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">ability
of nature to absorb man-made pollution</span> is continuously diminishing.
It is a lunatic idea that</span></i><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;"> </span></i><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #c00000; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;">in a
finite world infinite growth is possible.<br />
<br />
</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-AU;">---------------------------<br />
<br />
</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #c00000; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: DE;">Further Comments
of Saral <br />
<br />
</span></i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: DE; mso-themecolor: text1;">I think I should here
add another important point that occurred to me later: <br />
<br />
Both in the article of Kothari and Bajpai and my two comments/contributions we
have discussed how difficult it is to make the ruling on the Ganga and Jamuna
operational. But in my subsequent readings, till now, I have found no such
discussion on the matter in connection with the Whanganui River, as if the New
Zealanders and Maoris involved cannot imagine any difficulty that may arise
after passing of the said law. I think this difference can be explained if we
consider the following facts:<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>New Zealand's population density is
17 per km<sup>2 </sup>, India's 368 per km<sup>2</sup>. These figures are for
the whole area of New Zealand and India respectively. If we could have the
figure for the Ganga-Jamuna basin, we would surely see that the figure far
surpasses that of India as a whole. I could check the figure for Uttar Pradesh,
which is a part of the Ganga-Jamuna basin. It is </span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">829 per km<sup>2</sup>.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Kothari and Bajpai have described, in a few
sentences, the demands that economic development is making on the Ganga. On the
just 290 km long Whanganui River we can read the following sentences: "It
is essentially left in its natural state, since it does not flow through any
big population or industrial centre. On the contrary, it flows through two
national parks and is New Zealand's centre of river Kayak sport" (the
German Wikipedia). I hope everything is clear now.</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: DE; mso-themecolor: text1;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
Saral Sarkarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14801618107395376433noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4729735685376119377.post-5591517566953531122017-03-05T00:44:00.000-08:002017-03-05T00:44:50.023-08:00Nafeez Ahmed's Book: Failing States, Collapsing Systems, Biophysical Triggers of Political Violence
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-indent: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: DE;">5.03.2017<br />
<br />
Dear friends,<br />
<br />
I know you as a politically interested person. You may even be a political
activist. If you know me and my writings (<a href="http://www.eco-socialist.blogspot.com/"><span style="color: blue;">www.eco-socialist.blogspot.com</span></a>),
then you know that I have been writing since long about limits to growth, peak
oil, unviability of renewable energies, the general ecological crisis, crisis
of capitalism, the danger of collapsing states etc.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Recently, Johny Rutherford, a young
friend from Australia, informed me about a publication which has pleased me
very much. It is a small book, just 94 pages, by <span style="color: #c00000;">Nafeez
Ahmed</span> entitled <br />
<br />
<span style="color: #c00000;">Failing States, Collapsing Systems, Biophysical
Triggers of Political Violence.<br />
<br />
</span><span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;">In it the author has
collated all the relevant </span><span style="color: #c00000;">biophysical</span><span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;"> data – global as well as from various
problem countries – that explain why countries like Somalia or Yemen have
failed and why he thinks that even such a rich country like Saudi Arabia is in
danger of becoming a failed state. Ahmed thinks that even </span><span style="color: #c00000;">China</span><span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;">,
the second biggest economy of the world today, and </span><span style="color: #c00000;">India</span><span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;">,
a self-styled emerging economic superpower, may suffer the same fate.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After reading a review-summary of the
book made by </span><span style="color: #c00000;">Alice Friedman</span><span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;"> (see below), I find Ahmed's reasoning
very convincing.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The book is very dear, but the
review-summary is available free of cost in the internet. I </span><span style="color: #c00000;">appeal </span><span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;">to all politically interested and active people to read at least the
latter and forward it to all political </span><span style="color: #c00000;">decision
makers</span><span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;"> and </span><span style="color: #c00000;">opinion leaders</span><span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;"> of their country (add also your appeal to them) plus to
all those who are worried about the fate of their native country and humanity
at large. I am going to do the same.<br />
<br />
With best wishes<br />
<br />
Saral Sarkar</span><br />
<span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;">-----------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
Alice Friedmann:</span><br />
<br />
</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: DE;"><a href="http://energyskeptic.com/2017/book-review-of-failing-states-collapsing-systems-biophysical-triggers-of-political-violence-by-nafeez-ahmed/"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: blue; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">http://energyskeptic.com/2017/book-review-of-failing-states-collapsing-systems-biophysical-triggers-of-political-violence-by-nafeez-ahmed/</span></a></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: DE;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
Saral Sarkarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14801618107395376433noreply@blogger.com1