Friday, February 3
You've got to be red to be green
SOCIALISM, TECHNOLOGY, ENVIRONMENTALISM
Greens and socialists often see eye to eye. The International Greens (and therefore most Green parties) are committed to social justice, and socialism is an ideology of collective responsibility for each other, and, by extension, the environment. But one of the (apparently) biggest obstacles to uniting the two philosophies is what to do when environmental policies threaten jobs. If a socialist party is there in part to protect the working class, it risks contradiction (never mind losing a lot of its core support) by shutting down coal-fired power stations and so forth - but to give in to the coal unions would be to put the minority's interests above those of the majority, present and future.
The same dilemma comes when talking of mechanisation, automation, and other technological advances. Clearly, it's more efficient in some industries for machines to do the work of humans, and in theory, society benefits - but those you lay off won't be too happy. Capitalist groups seize on this in particular as an example of socialism's inefficient backward tendencies and anti-innovation policies. Certainly, these are fair criticisms of many socialist parties of the past, but not of socialism per se.
What would I, as a green socialist, do? I'd close the power station or factory. But (and this is what critics forget), as a socialist, I support good redundancy packages, social support, and, most important of all, giving each and every worker the opportunity to retrain, along with help finding another job. Workers should not suffer for circumstances beyond them, and with a responsible social system, that won't happen. And I remind those who decry this as wasteful that the newly-unemployed will need to eat, regardless of if they're working. Better that they're helped back into the economy than abandoned. Yes, there is a conflict of interests between being green and representing workers under a purely capitalist system, but not under a socialist system.
Be careful to notice where the contrast lies, as well. It is not so much between two ideologies - or even between two policies - rather, it is between a policy and (under capitalism) the interests of traditional supporters of socialism. Socialism is not merely a worker's interest group, it's an economic and political model which happens to draw support from the 'working class'. That's not to say that we shouldn't be standing up for the exploited. What I mean is that we must make sure that policies that are in the interest of humanity as a whole do not come at an unbearable cost to one section of society or another... Colourblindness anyone?
SOCIALISM, TECHNOLOGY, ENVIRONMENTALISM
Greens and socialists often see eye to eye. The International Greens (and therefore most Green parties) are committed to social justice, and socialism is an ideology of collective responsibility for each other, and, by extension, the environment. But one of the (apparently) biggest obstacles to uniting the two philosophies is what to do when environmental policies threaten jobs. If a socialist party is there in part to protect the working class, it risks contradiction (never mind losing a lot of its core support) by shutting down coal-fired power stations and so forth - but to give in to the coal unions would be to put the minority's interests above those of the majority, present and future.
The same dilemma comes when talking of mechanisation, automation, and other technological advances. Clearly, it's more efficient in some industries for machines to do the work of humans, and in theory, society benefits - but those you lay off won't be too happy. Capitalist groups seize on this in particular as an example of socialism's inefficient backward tendencies and anti-innovation policies. Certainly, these are fair criticisms of many socialist parties of the past, but not of socialism per se.
What would I, as a green socialist, do? I'd close the power station or factory. But (and this is what critics forget), as a socialist, I support good redundancy packages, social support, and, most important of all, giving each and every worker the opportunity to retrain, along with help finding another job. Workers should not suffer for circumstances beyond them, and with a responsible social system, that won't happen. And I remind those who decry this as wasteful that the newly-unemployed will need to eat, regardless of if they're working. Better that they're helped back into the economy than abandoned. Yes, there is a conflict of interests between being green and representing workers under a purely capitalist system, but not under a socialist system.
Be careful to notice where the contrast lies, as well. It is not so much between two ideologies - or even between two policies - rather, it is between a policy and (under capitalism) the interests of traditional supporters of socialism. Socialism is not merely a worker's interest group, it's an economic and political model which happens to draw support from the 'working class'. That's not to say that we shouldn't be standing up for the exploited. What I mean is that we must make sure that policies that are in the interest of humanity as a whole do not come at an unbearable cost to one section of society or another... Colourblindness anyone?
# posted by Phugebrins @ 17:41 
