Debate: should we ally with 'green' capitalists? Maybe.
You can read the Introduction to the debate here
Article originally published in Issue 3 of Rupture, Ireland’s eco-socialist quarterly, buy the print issue:
What is your theory and strategy for social change? Reform versus revolution? A ‘just energy transition’ or the fundamental socio-economic ‘transformation’ of the mode of production? A ‘parliamentary road to eco-socialism’, or non-violent direct action and workplace occupations? These questions of strategy and change are perhaps the most important to consider. How often have we heard or perhaps ourselves said ‘don’t let the perfect become the enemy of the good?’ ‘The tree that does not bend in the wind, breaks’. And given that political activists have limited time, groups, parties and movements have limited resources, and often short windows of opportunity, where should we put our energies, hopes and anger to help transform and remake a society beyond ecocidal, exploitative and carbon-fuelled capitalism? What compromise should be considered with bourgeois electoral politics and the neoliberal state? What compromises should be considered with elements of capital and business? If at all? And what compromises should be ruled out? And how can or should we distinguish between ‘good/necessary/justified’ and regressive compromises? Is the term ‘compromises’ even a useful term?
Before I begin, full disclosure: What is offered here is not some well worked out evidence based and theoretically astute analysis of strategy, compromise and when to engage in tactical conciliatory moves, and when to exacerbate conflict and open contestation. Rather it is a set of (honest) reflections on issues of strategy based on my own experiences and informed by my understanding of eco-socialist politics. And it has (literally) more questions to offer than answers.
We need to talk about strategy…
What we are talking about here is the difficult, messy and ultimately context-specific question of identifying thresholds or lines beyond which certain strategies, campaigns, actions (including non-actions) are unproductive, counterproductive or a waste of time, activist energy and movement or party resources. Is it better and worth it to get some modest gains, but for the people who benefit from these gains might be very significant, here and now, with some tangible positive results - as opposed to closing off that option for the sake of the bigger picture, for future and possibly much bigger structural transformations? Would the energy and work that goes into such localised, modest wins (small beer in the grand scheme of dismantling carbon-fuelled globalised capitalism) be better directed to the ‘long struggle’?
Is reformism and a willingness to contemplate compromise with parts of capital and to work within bourgeois democracy and the status quo, based on a sense of defeatism? That such compromises are evidence that we think we cannot win, or win big, and that the most we can achieve are minor reforms? Is such thinking an expression of the truth that dare not speak its name - namely that the current economic and social and political conditions do not provide any realistic chance of large-scale radical social or economic transformation, never mind revolution (whatever that means or looks like in the current context)? That the ‘facts on the ground’ do not add up at this time, and that the best we can hope for is - take your pick - to bide our time, build up the political resources (especially around popular political education and political economy in my view), take opportunities where we can, including material gains for working class people and climate action, for example, and support or initiate struggles and seek to join them up; seek to repoliticise working class organisations such as trades unions, explore new coalitions and alliances? Dig where we stand and become the ‘old mole of history’ as Marx described it (of which more below), but not at any cost.
Or can such modest reformism be also viewed as necessary defensive movements, that is, done not to necessarily progress eco-socialism, but simply to protect already existing (inadequate) state services, for example from austerity or privatisation? Can negotiations about such defensive social mobilisation, which mostly fall short of radical political progress (for example in terms of the ownership and control of productive assets or state services), be simply viewed as necessary, unavoidable and inevitable / but should not be viewed as dishonourable or naïve compromises or certainly not ‘defeatist’?
Wars of position and wars of movement
Gramsci’s important insights into the different strategic options open and possible in a ‘war of position’ as opposed to a ‘war of movement’ are pertinent here I think. The ‘war of movement’ (or ‘war of manoeuvre’), for Gramsci, constitutes open contestation and antagonistic open conflict between an insurgent revolutionary movement, classes and allies and the state and its class alliance where the outcome is decided by direct clashes between this insurgent movement of movements and the state. The war of position, on the other hand, is a slow, hidden conflict, where forces seek to gain ideological influence and political, economic and cultural power. The war of position both precedes (usually) a war of movement and is in large part an issue of ideological contestation, and where anti-capitalists seek to both reveal the exploitive, ecocidal and contradictory character of capitalism, and seek to delegitimise this dominant social order in the eyes of the majority class in society, the working class.
I think it is fair to say we are in a war of position at present; hence the importance of political education for eco-socialists to engage with working class communities in using their lived experience as the basis for demonstrating how eco-socialism can explain the lived experiences of people. Here, neoliberal responses to the climate crisis, for example, such as dreams of mythic proposals to ‘decouple’ ever increasing economic growth and capital accumulation from resource and pollution impacts (as can be seen the ‘green growth’ or ‘circular economy’ dominant narratives within business, the EU, academic debate and most nation-state policy responses), need to be called out for what they are: not only regressive (unjust transition pathways), but scientifically illiterate. This is part of the ‘battle of ideas’, for eco-socialists to constantly point out the ideological and mythic wish fulfilment of these strategies, the main aim of which is to sustain capitalism and the status quo, not a liveable world nor a just, sustainable and equitable economy.
It is perhaps unhelpful to present alternative ways of thinking and possible courses of action in stark and dogmatic ‘either/or’ terms. All possible strategies should be considered, within the larger context of some clear objectives. For example, entering into reformist alliances or actively participating in parliamentary electoral politics can also be useful in terms of demonstrating to communities, activists and citizens the limits of what is possible to achieve within the tramlines of bourgeois representative democracy. Look at how little the Green Party is achieving as part of a right-wing coalition. A milk and water climate change bill, cycle lanes and the achievement of (at best) a very limited greening of neoliberalism (‘green’ austerity) as the price for coalition membership. The limited impact of the Greens in government could (as if proof were needed) illustrate how little is possible within the confines of a neoliberal nation-state and EU monetary and economic rules.
But sticking with this example, we could consider alternative strategies the Greens could have made in entering coalition government. What if the Greens, even as they entered government, also embarked on a civil society and community based set of initiatives to organise and mobilise its own membership base to go out into their communities, make alliances with community groups, trades unions, other parties etc. to co-create local just transition committees and plans for what resources and changes might be needed in local communities around green and low carbon employment, retrofitting homes, local food production, mapping the assets of the local community/area and then scaling this up for a network of communities to join together, share ideas and plans. That is, to pursue both state and civil society action. But this sadly was the path not chosen by the leadership of the party, reflecting the dominance of state-led, policy-based and modest (as well as regressive) legislation as the only ‘theory of change’ possible. And to a large extent this is correct; if you play by the rules of bourgeois politics, your choices for action are massively constrained. But as Marx said, we do not change history in conditions we ourselves control or make.
Let’s consider another example. Supporting (or at least not objecting or organising against) renewable energy capital as part of the transition away from fossil fuels, and the section of finance capital that supports the former. Does this make sense from a tactical point of view as well as a strategic one? What are the dangers and advantages? From a strategic point of view, support for green capital could further increase the divisions within capital (we sometimes forget than like the state itself, capital is also internally divided and contradictory) which could precipitate political and/or economic crises or opportunities that could be exploited. Or it could help the transition from ‘fossil capitalism’ to ‘green capitalism’. But could this new mode of accumulation provide better conditions for transformative politics (as well as lessening the effects, but not addressing the root causes, of ‘actually existing unsustainability’)?
From a tactical point of view, such political support could also be the basis for provisional cross-class alliances and pragmatic and localised wins for communities where a condition for the siting of privately owned renewable energy is that the local community gets a stake in the facility, well paid jobs (especially significant if the community has suffered losses in fossil fuel based employment), free or discounted electricity or some share of ownership and control (this would require state legislation, though depending on the local context, renewable energy companies might see this as a price worth paying for social acceptance and local support). While falling short obviously of communities and citizens having ownership and control over the renewable energy means of production, would support for this specific transition to green capitalism be worth considering as a necessary step in the direction of transcending capitalism itself? Would this demonstrate to communities who benefit that tangible benefits to working people here and now are also part of the eco-socialist struggle? Or would it be a complete tactical and strategic mistake? Eco-socialist ‘trade union consciousness’ perhaps? And in all of these strategic considerations of different courses of action, there is absolutely no guaranteed outcome, no accounting for unintended consequences, bad luck or unforeseen ‘events’.
Endless Struggle
As Frederick Douglass, freed slave and anti-slavery leader wrote in 1857
“Let me give you a word of the philosophy of reform. The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims have been born of earnest struggle. The conflict has been exciting, agitating, all-absorbing, and for the time being, putting all other tumults to silence. It must do this or it does nothing. If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing up the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.”
Power concedes nothing without a struggle. Indeed. And this insight should be our guide, that any tactical alliance we make, or concession we enter into, any working with (and within) the existing political and economic status quo for immediate benefit of others, any defensive actions taken, should be done in the full light that these are provisional, temporary and tactical moves. Imperfect means to greater and longer term ends, knowingly entered into and understood as such.
From an eco-socialist perspective it is always salutary to look back to previous historical struggles and events both for inspiration and for valuable lessons, whether those struggles were successful or not. For example, can we find lessons for the struggle to move beyond carbon-fuelled and ecocidal capitlaism in the anti-slavery struggle stretching back hundreds of years? Just as we saw people campaign for the abolition of slavery, not its reform, so we should support those who seek to abolish fossil fuels. And just as the abolitionist movement did not worry about the costs of abolition, so should the climate justice movement be utterly uncompromising in its demand for the planned retirement of and just transition beyond fossil fuels. Here, it is interesting and important to note how much of the opposition to the abolition of slavery based around counterarguments that it would be an ‘economic disaster’ and ‘would cost too much’, and that it has to be done, if at all, over a much longer time period.
But here we can see a difference in language, approach and strategy from what I would term naïve green or pure environmentalist positions and those from a more class-based and justice perspective. A good illustration of this is the different reactions to the decision by Bord na Móna to end peat cutting and using peat to generate electricity. While many of these naïve greens celebrated this as a ‘win’ in that this decision is an important, if modest, step in the direction of decarbonising the Irish energy system and therefore a step in the right direction in the fight against climate breakdown, there was little acknowledgement of this as an ‘unjust energy transition’. That this step towards a renewable energy system in Ireland was at the cost of workers being laid off, no engagement with trades unions and no plans in place for impacted communities in the midlands area. The very fact that the previous government was compelled to retrospectively appoint a Just Transition Commissioner, and after the fact to cobble together a meagre just transition policy, indicates the callous disregard by Bord na Móna and the Irish state of the impacts of decarbonisation on the working class in rural Ireland. And similarly, with the coalition government’s decision to accept the ‘carbon tax’ route to decarbonisation based on the neoliberal and economically (not ecologically or climate) focused recommendations of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment.
The ‘old mole of history’
In the Eighteenth Brumaire, Marx wrote of European revolutionary politics, with a particular focus on France. Revolutionary forces. Marx wrote that they would first overthrow the monarchy, then constitute parliamentary power. The establishment of a parliament would deepen the demands of the people, who would set aside the owners of property and take charge of society. At which point, Marx wrote, “Europe will leap from its seat and exultantly exclaim: Well grubbed, old mole!” This is a reference to Shakespeare’s Hamlet. Shakespeare uses the ‘Old Mole’ to represent the ghost of Hamlet's father who keeps speaking from under the stage, despite Hamlet and Horatio shifting their ground, seeking a secret place to swear their oath. Hamlet says: “Well said, old mole!”. The revolution and revolutionary political outcomes, for Marx, is the ‘old mole’ that sometimes burrows deep into the soil of history, and is therefore lost from sight and nothing transformational seems to happen or be possible. Then unexpectedly (in time, place or event) it pops its head out. So at times when the historical conditions are not ripe, the mole goes underground, but to paraphrase another bearded one, ‘hasn’t gone away you know’. And then when the mole surfaces, these are the times when crises can usher in radical change. This dynamic of the ‘old mole of history, is what, I think, Lenin was talking about when he famously said, “There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen”.
So what does all or any of this tell us about political strategy and struggle? That sometimes we have to go with the ‘old mole of history’, and wait, prepare and dig in (and down) for a long struggle. Here, I think there is overlap with the connections between the anti-slavery struggle, the climate crisis struggle and the qualities needed to sustain activists. The anti-slavery struggle took, depending on how one analyses it, centuries or decades. The climate crisis is something we will have to endure and live with for decades and centuries ahead, even if we embark on rapid and scaled up decarbonisation now. In both cases I discern how stoicism and belief in a cause greater than oneself were paramount characteristics of those involved in those struggles. Such stoicism and ‘keeping on keeping on’, despite the conditions not being good, ripe or supportive for rapid large scale social and economic transformation are, I would suggest, the qualities we need always. But also being ready in anticipation for the mole of history to emerge (which of course is not some ‘natural process’ but partly a result of political agency and agitation i.e. the conditions for revolutionary change can be created, tensions exacerbated, alliances forged, contradictions exposed, ideological ‘commonsense’ revealed and challenged etc.). The ‘longue durée’ of struggle requires stoicism, and as clear a set of flexible, adaptable goals, which can offer rough and ready guides to when, and under what conditions, reform and compromise is acceptable and when such tactical movements undermine the larger political strategy and direction of historical transformation. Hence the mark and strength of an eco-socialist in the early 21st century is not the energy and commitment working towards near-time decade timescale social transformation, but decadal long endurance. Struggle is a marathon not a sprint and we might find inspiration from that most unlikely of sources – the Catholic Church. And like it, think in terms of decades and centuries.
But, to return to something raised earlier, any short-term, tactical concession, compromise etc. has to be seen always in the light of the longer strategic struggle and end goal of abolishing and economic and political transformation beyond capitalism, not simply beyond carbon. And here there is the delicate and also balanced judgement to be made between taking a quick win (including non-strategic wins that would immediately improve the lives of working class people), and refusing that option for another more agonistic path. Between being ‘reasonable’ and ‘unreasonable’, and here GB Shaw has some wise words which must always guide us, but not be our only guide to action (and we will forgive him the sexist language):
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman
