View all notes
Available query params: commented=1, untagged=1
Some have accused public-power advocates of taking advantage of the climate crisis to push an unrelated socialistic agenda. Why would state control over the means of production make the United States more likely to meet its emissions and adaptation goals than crafting a better market for the players we already have? Should the government, with little experience or organizational capacity, really take over EV production from the automakers, for example? Wouldn’t it be inefficient to hold a national referendum on what color trim options to offer on the state hatchback? There’s nothing obvious to gain by shutting down the private companies and rehiring everyone at USA Cars to do the same jobs, not from a climate perspective. If our central task as a society is to build three hundred million electric cars, then it’s probably best to get the autoworkers and automakers to do it. But who’s to say we need to build three hundred million electric cars? What if we need to build three hundred gigawatts of pumped-storage hydropower? When you look at the green transition from the perspective of grid-scale energy storage, it’s clear that, no matter how great the social need is, capitalists will simply decline to invest in certain kinds of projects, even with a reasonable expectation of long-term profit. And since no capitalist is ultimately responsible for society’s metabolism as a whole, there’s no guarantee that some decisive detail of decarbonization won’t drop between them like a fly ball in front of a lackadaisical Little League left fielder.
There is a perfect example of sophisticated public-power thinking along these lines in a 2023 report from the Climate and Community Project (now the Climate & Community Institute). In “Achieving Zero Emissions with More Mobility and Less Mining,” the authors approach American transportation planning and EVs from a social-metabolic, public-power perspective: Instead of looking at the problem from one side, they examine a few different variables, including lithium demand, average battery size, rate of vehicle ownership, and battery recycling.ii The paper offers four different planning scenarios, ranging from mere electrification to a deep transformation in land use and urban design that would increase walking, biking, and the use of public transit.13 Profit and even cost of development are not considered. The report’s real virtue isn’t the revelation that the United States can deeply reduce its incipient demand for rare-earth metals by moving away from car dependence—that’s simple. The point is the kind of planning-thinking that a public-power perspective enables, the kind of thinking in which a neighborhood bus schedule in California is connected to a mine in Australia. Anything less than that is willful ignorance. Among the benefits of the low-lithium scenarios, the report concludes, are mitigated harms of lithium mining, reduced geopolitical tensions with regard to control over mineral deposits, safer communities, and achieved climate targets. Such a scenario would also be in line with public power–style efforts in mining countries to capture more of the value chain—think Chile’s nationalization of its lithium and Indonesia’s successful ban on the export of unrefined nickel—which means richer countries paying more for less.14 This equalization of global exchange is a basic requirement for what’s called a just transition. Those are the kinds of planetary goals Huber refers to, the ones even well-intentioned capitalists are not able to achieve because they require social planning at a level that is above the capitalist pay grade.
One of the main problems with the Oil-Value-Life chain is that human desperation anywhere becomes a threat to human life everywhere, because capital reliably conscripts the reserve army of labor into environmentally noxious work. To counteract this predatory (though impersonal) phenomenon, public power seeks to ensure that no one out there is left vulnerable and alone, dependent on capitalist vultures in order to meet their basic needs. Along with public health care, public housing is therefore the strategy’s foundation as much as electric power is. Childcare, education, and eldercare as well. And there is no life, public or otherwise, without recreation and art. A picture of a public-powered life comes into focus, and it involves a shift of collective resources toward low-carbon, high-touch care work. With more than enough doctors and nurses to go around, capitalism can’t hold your loved one’s life over your head and compel you to smuggle petrol in order to get enough money to save them, for example. No one could even justify their highly paid antisocial career with their child’s need for a good education, not if everyone’s child was entitled to a good education regardless of parental income. Perhaps this is counterintuitive, but in such a world we could all take more personal responsibility for our choices.
I strive to keep my critique mostly out of the psychological realm, but here it’s worth citing Anselm Kizza-Besigye, who argues that Western horror, even on the political left, at the idea that our access to particular consumer items might decline in a better-planned world is a reflection of geopolitical castration anxiety. Taking up the Western addiction to what he (as a Ugandan) sees as our “sad bananas,” he writes, “They can envision no good substitute for their sad bananas because the desire Westerners feel for them is not for the fruits themselves—even at their best bananas are a mid-tier tropical fruit—but for the relations of unequal exchange that enable Americans to take a disproportionate share of the world’s agricultural surplus and, with perverse glee, waste almost half of it.” I wouldn’t know how to test such a claim, but I find it quite believable. Anselm Kizza-Besigye, “Banana Republics,” Africa Is a Country, September 11, 2023.
footnote. this is so good and i think reading this was roughly coeval with me ending my daily banana consumption
But that’s not how Earth First! organizer Judi Bari saw it. She saw herself and her comrades as being on the side of workers—workers who might want to go fishing or camping on occasion—as opposed to the clear-cutting, job-automating timber bosses. She told an interviewer at the time, “There are very few people who think the right of a few people to make $7.00 an hour for a few more years is worth the extinction of a 10,000 year-old eco-system. I’m one of the strongest advocates for the loggers and the millworkers. I’m certainly a stronger advocate for them than their own unions are, and I’m certainly a stronger advocate for them than their employers are.”77 As she pointed out, logging jobs were few and dangerous, and they involved chopping down so many trees in the name of Value that soon there wouldn’t be any trees or logging jobs left.viii Most timber workers aligned against EF! regardless, tying yellow ribbons around their front-yard trees to signal their allegiance to the bosses. Some workers went a lot further than that, and Bari’s writings are thick with scenes of loggers punching Earth Firsters in the face in defense of their jobs. (They weren’t the only ones getting hit—Bari recounts a sign from a timber-wife counterdemonstrator: “If you take my husband’s job, he takes it out on me.”)78 Bari and EF! were right, of course, that no real analysis of workers’ interests could conclude in favor of clearcutting old-growth forest, and no conceivable public-power regime would allow it—even the American federal government ultimately didn’t—but the loggers followed their bosses’ plans. By placing jobs first, these workers ended up affirming capital.
That there’s still work to be done is dramatically clear in New York State, where public-power advocates got their win with the Build Public Renewables Act. While strategists in the Democratic Socialists of America plan for the state’s public power workers to grab hold of the planning function and trigger a worldwide cascade of social transformation, the local International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers is engaged in some of the worst planning you could possibly imagine, as a headline on the New York Focus website in June of 2022 proclaimed: ELECTRICAL WORKERS UNION FIGHTS TO EXPAND FOSSIL FUEL–POWERED CRYPTO MINING IN NEW YORK. Joined by the AFL-CIO, the IBEW lobbied Governor Kathy Hochul not to sign a bill (she did) that put a moratorium on new proof-of-work cryptocurrency mines powered by fossil fuels. Since cryptocurrencies produce zero social goods, there’s no excuse for them except to appease capital. The IBEW’s legislative council head, Addie Jenne, was clear: The crypto industry can “reignite” disinvested communities through jobs and taxes, Jenne told the Focus, and “provide buzz to attract a certain type of workforce… and attract cluster economic development.”84 It’s not the first time the state’s big unions have backed fossil fuels.ix “We need a realistic approach to meet the state’s bold climate goals and must leave every option on the table,” said the New York State AFL-CIO president, Mario Cilento, in defense of gas-powered energy plants.85
noooo
From the communist perspective, the capitalist world is split by metabolic rifts. In addition to being unsustainable on a planet with a relatively finite number of atoms, accumulative, exploitative, and extractive practices generate pathological inequality. Rifts emerge everywhere—between cities that throw away imported nutrients and rural areas that have to deal with their shit; between humans and the other animals we instrumentalize; between core countries and the periphery, mined for cheap minerals and cheap labor. “If production systems result in waste products that threaten biological reproduction and social problems that weaken the social whole, an ecological and social crisis occurs,” writes the ecofeminist thinker Carolyn Merchant. “A contradiction opens between production and reproduction.”3 The earth’s systems—including but not limited to its human systems—are superexploited and can no longer sustain themselves. (This was apparent in 1996, when Merchant published her argument, but the ravine is deeper now.) She calls for an alternative ethic of “earthcare,” one based on healing the rifts between humans and the rest of our world so that we might rejoin it as partners. And if humanity could shake off capitalism like water off a dog’s back, we could adopt a more earthcareful social metabolism without communists having to beat anyone to death with sticks, so to speak. Let us pretend for a moment that this is the case.
The police are capital’s impersonalized trigger finger, pulling on a gun pointed across borders, across property lines, across classes, and across races. They are the status quo’s heavily armed militia, designed to insulate the ruling class from popular pressure, and thus they constitute the most direct obstacle to all progressive plans for the future. The police are there to shoot you if you start acting too reasonably or too human. Communists recognize that the police (and police-like authorities) volunteer to place themselves outside the human community, and communists plan to defend themselves and their values accordingly. The Zapatistas, for example, are not commonly understood as a movement of Indigenous women practicing agroecology—similar to the NSS—even though that’s in large part what they are.50 Instead, people know them as masked militants wielding AK-47s and marching in columns through the jungle. Communists are willing to do the latter to achieve the former without too much concern about whether their actions are legitimate in the state’s eyes or not. As the communist poet and playwright Bertolt Brecht put it: “What is the use / Up to your chin in the shit, in keeping your / Fingernails clean?”51
There remains, even among the most extreme twenty-first-century communists, a strong taboo against targeting human beings for violence or negligently exposing them to harm. In my estimation, this is a product of a combination of factors that include, in addition to widespread moral humanism, a theoretical understanding that capital’s particular personnel aren’t the real problem or a source of much potential leverage in the shareholder age. Kidnapping an oil executive won’t change a lot except maybe get some of his subordinates promoted, the thinking goes. (Besides, he’ll probably insist on talking your ear off about his company’s “green” initiatives the whole time.) Communists have also tended to conclude that committing acts of violence isn’t worth the risk to themselves or to their movements and organizations, either in terms of attention from the authorities or backlash from the public. However, some have at least implied that they are reconsidering the extreme tactic of assassination. “Unlike the high Cold War when politburos, parliaments, presidential cabinets and general staffs to some extent countervailed megalomania at the top, there are few safety switches between today’s maximum leaders and Armageddon. Never has so much fused economic, mediatic and military power been put into so few hands,” wrote Mike Davis before his death, in 2022.58 Contemplating the threat posed by capricious individual leaders such as Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, Viktor Orbán, and Jair Bolsonaro, Davis suggests that we “pay homage at the hero graves of Aleksandr Ilyich Ulyanov, Alexander Berkman and the incomparable Sholem Schwarzbard”—about as close as any living left-wing American intellectual is going to get to printing “Just shoot the bastards.”
chimes with what he said during the talk in response to my question about the united healthcare ceo assassination - for capital, it's a personnel problem; it merely creates a job opening for the second in command
In the arson’s wake, an anarchist collective associated with the movement—the Conspiracy of Cells of Fire (in English)—released a pamphlet attempting to reckon with the deaths. “And Death Will No Longer Have Any Power: Concerning the Fire in the Marfin Bank” is a thoroughly unsatisfactory document. The collective refuses the “American army” language of “collateral damage,” but “on the other hand we will not pretend to commemorate the death of three people who, as regrettable as it was for their families, would again be a sterile news information of the system were it not the result, in the specific place and time, of a revolutionary practice.”64 The authors correctly point out that the system could never bear the same level of scrutiny, the responsibility for every accidental death produced by capitalism—never mind, I would add, the responsibility for every Alexandros Grigoropoulos—but they refuse to hold themselves and their comrades to a substantially higher standard. The struggle between communist values and capitalist Value is violent by nature, but that does not mean all consequences are justified or fall at the system’s feet. If uprising is also a kind of social planning, who wants planners who not only accidentally kill workers but also aren’t all that concerned about it? We have that, so to speak, in the fridge at home.