“System Shutdown,” read the screen above the Times Square subway entrance on Sunday afternoon. A gray sky had consumed the sun, and periodic gusts of wind rattled the traffic signs. Meanwhile, the supermarkets were jammed with shopping carts packed full of canned goods and toilet paper, in preparation for the impending “frankenstorm” as meteorologists had taken to calling it. The news ticker behind the TKTS stand on the corner of 47th Street and Broadway flashed with an alert that the New York Stock Exchange would be closed on Monday. The storm succeeded in doing what a year of the Occupy movement couldn’t: It shut down Wall Street.
By the TKTS bleachers I found Phil Aroneanu, a leading organizer with 350.org, together with familiar faces from Occupy Wall Street. Aroneanu reached into a dusty army surplus backpack and unfurled a vintage parachute, circa World War II, with the words “End Climate Silence” scrawled on it. Occupy and 350.org activists both grabbed hold of it, together with passersby who spontaneously joined them, and held the parachute up, while from a lounge several stories high in a nearby luxury hotel photographers snapped pictures of the display. “We’re performing this action not to say that this impending storm is happening because of climate change,” Aroneanu explained, “but to highlight that we can expect more extreme weather like Sandy in the future if we continue on our current course.”
On Democracy Now! the next day, 350.org founder Bill McKibben explained that the aim of the organization’s activism is “to connect the dots between extreme weather, climate change and the fossil fuel industry.” The parachute in Times Square was one such dot. But to many of those engaged in pushing for society to combat climate change, there is a crucial dot missing in the constellation McKibben presents. Perhaps it is not a dot at all but the horizon. That is, the global system under which the majority of the world’s population lives: capitalism.
In a widely circulated article published this summer in Rolling Stone, McKibben outlines how our future is being held hostage by Wall Street and energy corporations banking on burning deposits of fossil fuels. As for solutions, McKibben advocates for pension funds and college endowment portfolios to divest from fossil fuels, for fee-and-dividend charges to be levied on big polluters and for increased milage requirements on vehicles. Yet these reforms simply won’t be enough to address the depth and scope of the climate crisis. They seek to curb and negotiate the excesses of Wall Street, rather than get rid of Wall Street all together. The pledges to regulate Wall Street we hear from politicians are like Anheuser-Busch telling people to “drink responsibly” — they run counter to the compulsion to profit at all cost that is grafted into the basic framework of the system.
A market-based, fee-and-dividend program could have an impact by charging polluters for emitting carbon into the atmosphere, yet it seems unlikely that such measures will have the teeth they need. The rapidly spreading method of fossil fuel extraction known as fracking, for instance, is already exempt from the Environmental Protection Agency’s Toxic Release Inventory. Both fuel efficiency standards and fee-and-dividend measures would need to be implemented immediately and thoroughly to have even a limited effect on mitigating the effects of climate change. Yet, since their first priority is protecting the interests of the 1 percent, both the White House and Capitol Hill have expressed almost zero political will on the issue. While Obama advocates for gasoline milage requirements on automobiles to take effect by the quarter turn of the century, Peter Wadhams, a professor of Ocean Physics at Cambridge University estimated last month arctic sea ice could vanish as early as the summer of 2016.
350.org plans on launching its “Do the Math” tour on November 7, corresponding with a divestment campaign that organizers hope to launch on college campuses across the country. McKibben and others have often mentioned that their efforts are modeled on the divestment movement against the South African apartheid state during the 1980s. But with divestment efforts we again encounter the systemic confines in which we find ourselves; as the Canadian eco-socialist David Schwartzman put it to McKibben, “Will Exxon go green because of political pressure?” Schwartzman instead calls for a strategy of class struggle that “encompasses the creative activity of the 99 percent” with the aim of “expanding democracy to all spheres, political, economic and social.”
Unless the environmental movement makes such inroads, a rift will continue to exist between those blockading pipelines and those constructing them, which those who have accumulated billions on backs of their workers to the detriment of the air, soil and water make use of. This is best illustrated by the Jobs for the 99 website set up by the Oil and Gas Industry Labor-Management Committee in favor of the Keystone XL pipeline, which demands, “Hollywood’s elite 1%… stop flying to DC and speaking out against jobs that help the other 99% of America!”
Presenting lessons he sees in the civil rights movement to today’s environmental activists, Waging Nonviolence columnist George Lakey argued recently that presenting oneself as an anti-capitalist is too “ideological” a stance for the everyday people to identify with. Instead, he says, activists should seek to build movements that incorporate “people who are ambivalent in their analysis and vision but are daily becoming clearer about their interests.”
But in the wake of the civil rights movement, a national organization emerged that did take a more ideological stance; the Black Panther Party engaged in localized struggle, put forward immediate national demands that workers and the poor identified with and maintained a revolutionary anti-capitalist perspective. The Panthers saw a theoretical framework as an essential component of their activism. Number five in the Panthers’ Ten Point Plan calls for an education system “that teaches us our true history and our role in present day society,” stating, “If you do not have knowledge of yourself and your position in the society and in the world, then you will have little chance to know anything else.” If we are going to fight climate change, doesn’t it behoove us to do as the Panthers did, to locate our struggle amid the dynamics of the social, economic, historic and ideological situation we find ourselves in — i.e., capitalism?
The civil rights movement and many of its leaders emerged from earlier struggles against racism in which anti-capitalist analysis played an intimate role. Mark Naison, in his classic study Communists in Harlem During the Depression, documents how, though frequently hampered by policy directives from Moscow, the American Communist Party worked with black nationalists, liberals, middle-class churches and even, occasionally, with the NAACP on anti-lynching campaigns, housing rights issues and multi-racial unionism. These struggles laid the groundwork from which organizations like the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee sprouted.
Despite the eventual gains of the civil rights movement, however, from 1949 to 1964 the annual income gap between whites and blacks nearly doubled. The economic framework that upheld the racist order was unaddressed. While civil rights was predominantly led by and composed of the black middle-class, the Panthers appealed to a poor and working class base, those with a set of economic and social needs that went beyond the compass of civil rights alone. Harry Haywood writes of the milieu in which the Panthers rose up: “Black revolt had crashed beyond the limited goals set by the old guard reformist assimilationist leadership of the NAACP and associates.”
On a national scale, the environmental movement in the United States today remains largely trapped within white, middle-class confines. As alarm bells grow louder over the threat climate change poses to humanity’s continued habitation of Earth, won’t the environmental movement reach such a threshold as well? Rather than solely seeking to assimilate green efficacy into capitalist modus operandi, as McKibben suggests, what would an environmental movement look like that challenges this modus operandi itself? Maybe it’s time for a Green Panther Party.
Since the global financial crisis broke out and the Arab Spring and Occupy Wall Street arose in its wake, amid the continuing revolts against austerity in Europe and the student victories in Chile and Quebec, it doesn’t feel so crazy to call oneself a revolutionary anymore, nor an anti-capitalist. Let’s be weary of only reaching for low-hanging fruit.
Last night, as auguries of climate change beat against my window in the form of Hurricane Sandy, I was reminded that 100 million people are expected to perish by 2030 as a result of the changes carbon emissions are causing to our earth’s climate. Fredric Jameson once wrote, “It is easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism.” Given the escalating nature of climate change, I for one would rather imagine an end to capitalism. And for that we’ll need an environmental movement as radical as reality itself.
Capitalism will fall faster than almost anyone thinks. The age of greed, or capitalism is ending. The new age of compassion and sharing is here Now!
That’s quite a claim! Do you mean that people don’t have to consciously do anything to bring that fall about? And how can we be sure that compassion and sharing will follow capitalism? What about fear and misery and helplessness and cruelty? That’s what has happened in some places where capitalism was overthrown.
The fall of capitalism in itself, will not insure a “better” world, as you so correctly point out. Capitalism is the economic manifestation of the root cause of so much that is wrong – the patriarchal, hierarchical structure of human society. Transformational change can only come about by addressing the vertical organization of society on all levels, economic, political, social and cultural –a daunting task indeed! That is why we must focus our energies on changing the world without taking power. That is in building a new horizontal society, sustenance economy, and culture rather than trying to tear down or reform the old patriarchal order. Of course, there is a hitch, and that is all of the above is based on defending and protecting as much as is left of the natural economy.
Mis hermanos y hermanas; Nathan, Ed, others: i feel, that joining the new dance of humanity is a very active process. The core or deep teachings of many paths speak of this opportunity, and the guidance that is available. Each person can make their own mind up to dance; there will be many others to help.
I think the Bantu philosophy of Ubuntu,sums it up :
I am, because, we are! o en espanol: Soy, porque, Somos!
@ Ed
The United States was not created by or for Capitalism, because it was something newly defined, 1776.
After the colonies were formed by religious persons and tobacco concerns, most of the immigrants to America came for a better life, and by the 1800s they came here to get rich. Coupled with advances in technology and industrialization, smart and crafty people then took advantage and exploited the new source of labor.
Excuse me, but this is when and why the corruption of my country gained and thrived from, about 1830-1840 on. While not laying blame, I see many events coming together around this point in time, whereby the transformation from what was to what became started.
Capitalism continues today with childishness fueling it at both ends.
But, the U.S. was created by and for the patriarchal hierarchy. In this case by rich, white, slave and land owning men. Capitalism is the manifestation of the patriarchy not the cause. While capitalism as an economic system is relatively recent – it was the central financial mover of the industrial revolution, which was already the dominant economic system in Britain when the U..S. was created. But capitalism’s roots are in the patriarchy, feudal land ownership and private property and the destruction of the commons and sustenance economy.
@ Nathan
We have Capitalism, and we have “fear and misery and helplessness and cruelty” already, so any change will go un-noticed.
Movements that need fundamental change to achieve their goals need to confront that reality. I agree with Peter Rugh about that need for climate justice. A movement, however, is not a monolith. The healthiest movements are like ecological systems; they have many niches rather than trying to be monocultures.
For us organizers, that means we need to decide who we’re organizing because that defines our niche and our message. It doesn’t prevent us from having a radical analysis, and vision. Peter is right that the civil rights movement included key people who were socialists and knew that the U.S. could not step fundamentally away from racism and remain capitalist. Bayard Rustin and A. Philip Randolph were two such figures, and the brilliance of their strategizing (which may be a model for us now) is what I outlined in my column of Oct 23, “How to create a multi-level movement for climate justice.”
They by no means believed they occupied the only civil rights niche, because they also had an ecologist’s understanding of social movements. They chose theirs because it was unoccupied, and it had to do with creating synergy between national and local, and with bringing together allies, and with giving hope, and with energizing the movement on a national stage.
Others, who they knew and respected, were doing essential educational work about the connections between capitalism and racism. Bayard was on the editorial board of Liberation Magazine, a very radical venue that brought together socialists and anarchists. One of the people who did aided the anti-capitalist rhetorical work was Dr. King in the last couple years of his life – more on the timing of that in a minute.
I’m sometimes tempted to say that, in strategy, timing is everything. The Black Panthers did not come together in the late ‘fifties, when they would have flopped, nor were they organized everywhere, because in many places even in the mid-sixties they would have flopped. We don’t create history, no matter how radical our analyses are; on a good day we dance with history. Strategic organizers tune in to what’s going on and relate to it with what folks are ready to consider as their mind-stretching next step in understanding.
In some circles I argue a very hard anti-capitalist rap in relation to climate justice and good things happen. In other circles, I need to go step-by-step. That’s not out of disrespect for my own beliefs; it’s out of respect for where other people are and my deep yearning to communicate successfully. I’ve already pointed out in these columns ways in which some Occupy people showed huge disrespect in communicating; those particular folks made it “all about themselves.”
I truly hope that Peter is not inviting eco-justice activists everywhere to make this all about us and our superior analysis.
If Peter believes, by referring to “low-hanging fruit” that campaigns are all about zero growth in consciousness and resignedly going for what can be gotten, then he’s not willing enough to innovate. Plenty of campaigns mobilize people around a feasible demand and in the course of mobilization the people radicalize. THAT’S what made the Black Panthers possible — the previous campaigns in the civil rights movement that awakened the U.S., got people in motion, and got their minds in motion, too.
I am attracted to the “shouting from the rooftops” model of change, and shouting the most radical things I can think of. There are neighborhoods, and moments, when that is effective, and I expect Peter to find them all.
The mistake is to believe that all neighborhoods and all moments are open to that approach. When activists think that, they fail and, in the worst cases, isolate themselves – a large theme in the history of the U.S. left.
Instead of the one-size-fits-all approach that I fear Peter is taking, I advocate a multi-dimensional climate justice movement that is led by organizers rather than rhetoricians and pays attention to what the niche requires for rapid growth – including rapid growth in vision.
One reason why “anti-capitalism” has so little leverage outside activist circles is that it doesn’t say what we’re for; only what we’re against. “Without a vision the people perish.” Still true, after all these years. A great thing in the Occupy movement was the moment when vision was honored, even in the attempt to make decisions. OK, the movement didn’t have enough skill to pull it off, but it was an experiment.
We could do worse than track the career of Dr. King in relation to vision. The more campaigns were waged, and the more people loosened their old mental habits and caution, the bolder became his statement of vision. And yes, after a decade of that, sensing where people were in the niche he occupied, he announced we need to go beyond capitalism to experience “a beloved community” and that we need class struggle to do it.
I’ve never known a communicator so gifted at dancing with history in the very large niche he chose. He was famous for his listening skills. We could emulate that.
George
Well said, George.
1) A Mutually Beneficial Society does the justice which Capitalism is incapable of. The purpose of being joined is to protect and enhance all, with enhancement as the defining statement of purpose.
2) Inconsistent historical knowledge cripples the ability to keep what is needed for where we want to go.
3) Linear or triangular visual political representations should make way for the three-dimensional four-sided pyramid – ever tumbling.
4) Regional Governments – Semi-Autonomous, Regional Capitols, disbursal of authority, DC Capitol closes down, the rest can stay.
5) Occupy Vision? What vision? I traveled to several, each was different, and too conservative. (This from a former Republican)
6) One-size-fits-all is knowing, accepting, and doing.
7) I don’t think I’ll ever understand liberals, because they seem conservative, authoritarian, while lacking cohesion and discipline.
8) I understand conservatives somewhat from exposure and my grandparents books. I read a few pages then throw down the book in disgust.
9) When we, collectively Americans, decide to grow up and get rid of these political parties, and understand our inevitable differences may require, number 4, the rest may fall into place.
Peter, please look into this podcast by Making Contact. I disagree with your claim, “On a national scale, the environmental movement in the United States today remains largely trapped within white, middle-class confines.”
From Making Contact – http://www.radioproject.org/2012/08/being-black-and-green-african-americans-the-environment-encore/ – Being Black and Green: African-Americans & the Environment ENCORE
“Communities across the country have embraced locally-grown food, fuel-efficient cars and other forms of environmentalism. While African-Americans haven’t been widely credited, they are amongst the vanguard creating positive change. On this edition, we take you to a resettlement community in North Carolina, sustainable farms in Wisconsin and on a bike ride in California, where local black communities are making long-term impacts on the environment.”
My point is not that we should superimpose a radical ideology on our reality, but that reality is pretty radical as is and our analysis should take this into account. Che Guevara is reported to have once quipped, “If you’re a revolutionary, go make a revolution.” The trouble is, revolutionaries don’t make revolutions. And neither do organizers. Classes, which possess a whole mixed bag of different and often contradictory ideologies, do have that capability. Those whom capitalism exploits and marginalizes in order to function are also the most capable of initiating change when they organize themselves. To do this it helps to equip ourselves with a fitting and accurate analysis, one that address the root causes behind the escalating rate of eco-devestation. Doing so, it is hard to ignore capitalism.
What am I for? I am for a just and sustainable world, an egalitarian future that we have seen glimpses of in May 1968, in Barcelona in 1936, in the Paris Commune and briefly at Occupy Wall Street’s encampment at Zuccotti Park. I hope that my articles at Waging NonViolence and my activism reflects my willingness to listen, hold a dialogue and to work with those from a variety of different perspectives towards these ends. We have a continuous struggle ahead, yes, but one that is necessary against the nightmare of Wall Street and the Frankenstorms of the future. Let’s be practical and demand the impossible. For more on climate change, capitalism, and resistance I recommend Chris Williams latest piece, http://dissidentvoice.org/2012/10/frankenstorms-and-climate-change-how-the-1-created-a-monster/
Peter, have you reached out to the Black Panther Party in NYC to see what their environmental program is? Maybe they could use your help.
You would have a stronger argument if you could identify a single fight that the Panthers won, or were crucial to winning on a national basis that even rivals the scale of the changes we need to fight climate change.
Not one word about wars and militarism contributing directly and indirectly to global climate change in this otherwise excellent article. Why NOT? Can capitalism exist without wars and militarism? It hasn’t yet. The US is the biggest weapons exporter in the world; has the most nuclear bombs and Depleted Uranium munitions; is engaged in hot wars and drone strikes in (at last count) Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and now perhaps Mali; spends more on its military than the rest of the world combined; has a Drones Caucus in the House of Reps; killed, or helped to kill, an estimated MILLION Iraqis in an invasion/occupation that Army soldier Pat Tillman correctly called “so fucking illegal” before he, like many others, was killed in “friendly fire”; and much more. All of that has massive environmental impacts. Why no mention? Too difficult even for “radicals”?
Janet, you raise a great point. I’ve long felt the environmental movement has overlooked the military impact. One thing you didn’t mention, and may be the most direct impact on the climate, is the fact the U.S. military is the biggest consumer of fossil fuels in the world. In any case, I don’t think we should assume this was a purposeful oversight on the author’s part. There is only so much that can be said in one article. But thank you for raising this point in the comments!
@ Janet
Yes, you raise other parts of a big picture. And, yes these are illegal, but those who vote for the two-party system perpetuate the killing, however, Americans, collectively, are responsible also.
Until there is acceptance of responsibility by the people, their collective power is fragmented into political pieces. Useless is belonging to any political party. These things divide us into a narrow nonsense.
By thinking instead of following, a greater amount of ideas can be then considered, independently of party conformity. Again, childishness keeps people for realizing they need to mature past these old ways created long ago.
Pete’s essay has a rousing meme that will motivate all of us trying to connect climate work to political activism: “we’ll need an environmental movement as radical as reality itself.” For those of us still struggling to come to terms with the material impact of Sandy–no power, no water, no phone–this is not the moment for long essays in response to the motivating force of Pete’s call. But I hear it. And it makes me think about the way that Strike Debt, a campaign of OWS in which I have been active [strikedebt.org] has gone to the reality that so many of us experience–debt–and made it possible to radicalize it. To follow Pete’s example, the Black Panthers supplied free breakfast for children that needed it and offered health care for those who could not afford it. If there is to be more than a green-washing moment after Sandy, we’ll need to be able to do those two things: first, find a way to radicalize the impact that biosphere destruction is having in people’s everyday lives; and second, offer mutual aid and sustainable alternatives, just as so many are doing in the streets of New York right now. Stay safe everyone.
I couldn’t agree more. Keep putting the public media spotlight on the root causes of global climate change, help the victims of climate change from the extreme storms, prepare for the next adverse reaction and build alternatives that undermine the fossil fuel, nuclear and centralize utility control of our energy system. Reduce, reuse, recyle, while thinking globally and acting locally. Undermine the power of Wall Street by putting our money and investments and retirement funds in regional, local, municipal, state controlled banks like the Bank of North Dakota and credit unions. Support worker owned and control businesses that are sustainable like the new joint venture of the United Steel Workers of America with the Mondragon Cooperatives of Spain. And finally, putting our bodies on the line to stop business as usual, stopping the cogs of the planet destroying companies, government and banks with creative nonviolent direct action campaigns and movements like the Stop Mountain Top Removal Campaign of Earth Quaker Action Group and Occupy Wall Street.