Hello Green fellow travellers:
This is a recent posting made by me to the left bio discussion group on
economic philosophy and green electoralism. There are several left bios in
the Canadian federal Green party in the discussion group, although I am a
non-party Green. This posting may be of interest to some on our list.
Best and for the Earth,
David
******

        Economic Philosophy and Green Electoralism: some reference points

"We must live at a level that we seriously can wish others to attain, not
at a level that requires the bulk of humanity NOT to reach." Naess, _Arne
Naess and the Progress of Ecophilosophy_, p. 224

"How far can radical green politics be achieved through the parliamentary
context if its ‘structural imperatives' demand the progressive abandonment
of such politics?' Andrew Dobson, _Green Political Thought_, third edition,
p. 129

"For the first time in history a social movement (the ecology movement)
‘promises' a lower standard of living." Saral Sarkar, _Eco-socialism or
eco-capitalism?_, p. 227

"There is no doubt that ecologism's stress on ‘limits' of all sorts amounts
to the potential curtailment of certain taken-for-granted freedoms,
particularly in the realms of production, consumption and mobility."
Dobson, p. 165


Hello left bios:
I have been reading some of the discussions on economics within the federal
Green Party which have been sent on to me. Also, recently, a sociology
teacher who has been sympathetic to left biocentrism, wrote
saying that "political economy needs deep ecology." Perhaps it is time for
a discussion on economics as seen by left biocentrism, on a "left biocentric
or deep ecology political economy." This is not a topic which normally
inspires
my creative juices.

The discussion, as I see it, is not technical/practical but needs to consider
basic philosophical underpinnings for an appropriate economic policy for
electoral and non electoral greens, in a society such as Canada's. The four
quotations above from Naess, Dobson, and Sarkar can, I believe, help in our
undertaking. Below are some draft ideas of a general nature for discussion.
Some of the ideas have taken from previous writings.

Reference points:

1. "Economy" for deeper greens does not just include the long term welfare
of humans and their habitats, but also includes preserving and not
significantly altering the long term welfare of all the other species of
life inhabiting the planet and their habitats. Any economic initiatives by
humans who call themselves green, should be guided by this overall
perspective. There is, ultimately, only a fixed amount of physical habitat
- whether land or marine - that humans must share with other species on an
equality basis. Therefore a population reduction strategy must be an open
part of any green economic policy, given existing consumption patterns and
resulting ecological footprints by humankind.

2. Deeper greens not only see Nature as having value in itself but, also
see Nature as the principal source of human wealth, not labour power as in
Marxism.

3. The present industrial capitalist system is totally ecologically
dysfunctional. It is also socially inequitable to hundreds of millions of
the world's citizens, who are permanently shut out of what some consider
the consumer "good life", or more importantly, an "adequate life."
Capitalism's prime motivation is the accumulation of Capital. This economic
system requires structural social inequalities to motivate the labour
force. "Discontent" is required for consumer capitalism, so that an
individual's sense of ‘vital needs' continually expands, e.g. information
technologies, thus creating new markets for the expansion of Capital.
Deeper greens understand that the "Natural Capitalism" thesis of Paul
Hawken et al, that Nature can be costed, is an illusion, because Nature
itself is priceless and beyond any human-centered economic rationality. The
fundamental question for greens to face in any economic philosophical
overview, is whether this system can be reformed and "nudged" in a
different direction while life goes on as normal, or does industrial
capitalism have to be replaced by a totally new ecological, economic,
cultural, and political alternative? Left bios believe, following the
shallow/deep distinction made by Arne Naess in the early 70s, that the
existing industrial capitalist economic model is inherently destructive and
must be replaced, if the Earth's life support systems are to continue. Our
economic path, as left bios, is to have a discussion on how to get to this
ultimate goal. For electoral greens to advocate "fudging" in an economic
policy because otherwise "the people will not accept it", is not only
dishonest given the actual situation, but is to practice electoral
deception and betray any green promise. Furthermore, such betrayal will
seriously set back any resolution of the ecological and social crisis which
we all face.

4. Greens face a worldwide U.S.-led economic fundamentalism. Green economic
policies must name this and oppose it. A U.S. government economic
fundamentalist belief is that the natural world has to be turned into
private property.  "Democracy," for U.S. economic fundamentalism, excludes
non-human life forms, as well as real public participation, and is
ideologically linked with a market economy. Government is there to
facilitate corporate growth, not to mainly intervene for citizens.
Corporate well-being is seen, through a latter-day Malthusian belief, as
being able to provide for citizen well-being in a spill-over fashion. This
economic fundamentalism rests on rigid beliefs in the endlessness of
economic growth and an ever increasing consumerism, and a belief that there
is essentially only one economic model, which has been developed in the
U.S. for the rest of the world. According to this model, "international
competitiveness" is considered THE indicator of a society's health. To meet
this competitiveness, social and environmental standards are sacrificed:
all countries must aim to have balanced budgets, no trade barriers, low
inflation, minimum labour standards, minimal environmental regulations,
maximum mobility for capital, etc. The economy is considered to govern the
society. Through various global economic institutions such as the World
Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, the
United States attempts to impose on other countries what has become known
as "The Washington Consensus." This economic fundamentalism is
"bi-partisan" and is followed by Republican or Democratic administrations.
Both administrations are "imperial" in that they take for granted U.S.
world leadership. U.S. economic fundamentalism - that is "trade over all,"
and that wealth must flow to U.S. corporations - needs a large military arm
to maintain, through intimidation, its world economic hegemony. To
facilitate the raising of military funds, an external enemy is extremely
useful. This function, formerly fulfilled by the alleged threat of
communism, has now been given over to religious fundamentalism of the
Islamic variety.

5. While "markets" long pre-date the emergence of industrial capitalist
society, in the sense of the exchange of trade goods and services, today a
"market society" has become an euphemism for a capitalist society. When
electoral greens routinely announce that they are using "market
mechanisms", everyone who is at all informed economically, understands that
the existing industrial capitalist economy, as an economic model, is being
basically accepted, as illustrated in point "4". This market, i.e.
pro-capitalist sentiment is widespread in the federal Green Party, whereas
we left bio greens believe that the future shape of an economic formation
for an ecocentric and green sustainable society is yet to be determined.
Industrial capitalism cannot be fundamentally altered to evolve in a more
ecologically and socially just direction. There is no "eco-capitalism" just
as there is no "eco-socialism." If we believe, as left bios, in the
necessary termination of industrial capitalist society if the Earth's
life-support systems are to continue, then we know that there can be no
long term "eco-forestry" or "eco-fishery" within the existing society. The
green electoral quest for "sustainability" within the existing expansionary
industrial capitalist society, is a cruelly illusory path to present to the
electorate in Canada. Industrial capitalist society, which requires the
ongoing destruction of Nature, IS the enemy, not something we embrace.

6. There is an ethical crisis within the business community and reflected
onto the public, which has little to do with the basic deep green critique
of industrial capitalism. I believe this ethical crisis is really
structural in nature and needs to be exploited. The last three years or so
have shown through numerous business-related stories in the U.S. and Canada
that the interests of consumers and investors have been betrayed from
within the system. Here is how one _Globe and Mail_ (November 23, 2004)
business writer, Janet McFarland, puts it: "First there was the post-Enron
era, with all its evidence about executives reaping huge rewards through
various generous deals with themselves. Then auditors were forced to admit
that big consulting fees had compromised the independence of their audit
work. The next target was stock analysts, who conceded they had received
undisclosed incentives to promote certain stock. Then mutual funds were
accused of helping traders manipulate their funds. And now we hear
insurance brokers had been paid undisclosed commissions for channelling
business to some insurers." Why should the investing public want to swim in
waters inhabited by such corporate predatory fish?


ECONOMIC POLICIES TO ADVOCATE FOR A DEEP GREEN POLICY ANALYSIS. (Taken in a
somewhat modified form, from my Commentary on Andrew Dobson's _Green
Political Thought_.)

a). Anti-anthropocentrism as number one priority, that is, accepting the
intrinsic value of the non-human environment, the Earth and all its
species. All policies in a dark green sustainable society must uphold this
non-human centeredness as a first principle.

b). Opposing all increased economic growth policies. Popularizing and
acting on the basic "limits to growth" thesis for the planet. In order to
advance this, social equity and the redistribution of wealth considerations
for the human species must be brought to the foreground in any deep green
political economy.

c). Advocating and advancing policies for the dismantling of industrial
society. The scale of the changes are indicated by Rudolf Bahro's mid 1980s
call for industrialized countries to reduce their Earth impact to about one
tenth at that time. We are long past the point, made in _Our Ecological
Footprint_ by Wackernagel and Rees: "If we are to live sustainably, we must
ensure that we use the essential products and processes of nature no more
quickly than they can be renewed, and that we discharge wastes no more
quickly than they can be absorbed."

d). Calling for major reduction in human populations and advocating
specific policies towards this end.

e). Calling for an end to consumerism. Initiating a large scale discussion
of what are vital needs in a context of preserving the planet and other
species, and calling for abolishing the advertising industry.

f). Advocating the necessity for an Earth-centered spiritual
transformation, so that human interests become placed in a context of
respect for all other species and using past animistic societies as
possible models from which much can be learnt. It is necessary for deeper
greens to understand that before Nature could be commodified, it had to be
disenchanted.

g). Opposing all conceptions of "private property" in the commons as social
fictions used to justify the exploitation of the Earth. Advocating usufruct
use, but making this use responsible to an all-species community of life
forms.

h). Asserting that a sustainable ecocentric society cannot and will not be
based on sexism, racism or any form of structural discrimination against
minorities.

I). Supporting the general organizational principle that "nothing should be
done at a higher level than can be done at a lower level," hence being
biased towards economic participation at the local level. Dark greens only
support bioregional forms of organization that are democratic. Dobson shows
that the economic practices of dark green societies "would be built
substantially around protectionism." So economic policies must reflect this.

j). Advocating the ending of all fossil fuel exploration and reduced
extraction, because of global warming and the reports of the UN
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that greenhouse gas emissions
must be cut 50-70% if the atmosphere of the planet is to remain hospitable.
Similarly, ending the production and use of chemicals toxic to the
environment.


I believe that the core ideas advocated above, and the general reference
points advanced in this discussion document, could be used as examples to
organize around. What attitude to take towards the State, and what
political, economic and social arrangements should be supported, are
pressing questions for us all. What we are to retain from the past, in our
post-industrial sustainable societies, is also a pressing issue. But as
Andrew Dobson has noted, and as I personally believe, deep/dark greens are
utopians and hold that human beings are capable of radical transformation.
Revolutionary hope, not pessimism, to guide our practice is therefore
important in political economy considerations. Before there can be mass
change there must be the public discussion of alternative visions. It is
the transformation of consciousness and the CIRCULATION of such alternative
visions, not vote getting, which should be the basic green electoral
orientation. In order to exit industrial capitalist society, we need
paradigm shifts, not electing members of parliament to Ottawa.






   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
               Visit the Green Web Home Page at:
              http://home.ca.inter.net/~greenweb/

        Our e-mail address is <[log in to unmask]>

   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~