Max J, Newcastle
I appreciate Mila taking the time to reply to my first letter. However, I think she neglects some key points I make, and I feel the need to clarify some things. I wrote my letter in reply to the CC’s letter to the Rising Tide protestival. When it was sent in and published originally, it was not clear whether it was addressing the attendees, or Rising Tide itself. Therefore, I wrote my letter with the latter in mind. Fortunately, this was clarified, and Mila herself agrees that trying to appeal to Rising Tide directly to get them to “turn communist” is a silly idea.
In my letter, I argue that reindustrialisation is a necessary stage toward curtailing climate crisis. In her reply, Mila calls this an “unfortunate temporary measure”. On the contrary – it is more than an “unfortunate temporary measure”, it is an absolute necessity. It is difficult to imagine how we could set the basis for communist society without, once the working class takes power, enacting a program of managed re-industrialisation. This is not to say that we should become Soviet era productivists, but that we cannot address the climate crisis if we continue the current post-industrial regime: we need to start producing steel and other crucial materials domestically, to the fullest extent possible. This is not only more “environmentally friendly” (it cuts down emissions from international shipping that are otherwise unnecessary), but it is also more efficient and gives us more control over production and distribution.
At no point do I reject the notion that most production is wasteful; in fact, the premise of my argument is that the current post-industrial regime is incredibly wasteful. This is why I advocate for a democratically managed, planned economy, so that production can be controlled and managed in such a way that it addresses human need and minimises waste. A move toward renewables is absolutely needed, but I reject the anti-modernity politics of much of the environmentalist movement which, incorrectly, believes we can drop fossil fuels tomorrow and still somehow maintain a post-industrial, consumerist, modern capitalist economy. I’m not convinced that the politics of “de-growth”, which more often than not fall into the kind of anti-modern environmentalism I find unconvincing, is necessary, or an accurate description of the kind of economy communists should want.
Mila also neglects to address the core issue around Rising Tide. It’s not simply that they’re activists, and activists are bad, but that their politics (insofar as Rising Tide have politics) are necessarily anti-worker. They promote an elitist form of activism which seeks out professionals to take political action on behalf of the class. As I explained in my article explaining the momentum model, they seek out a militant minority of activists who can win over a passive majority of society. They necessarily view the majority of the working class, and therefore a substantial portion of society, as only being useful insofar as they can passively approve what Rising Tide does. No serious thought is put to the organisational or industrial power of the working class, especially those working in the industries Rising Tide aims to oppose. They think that they can topple industries simply by getting enough people to show up to disruptive actions. I wonder where they imagine they can put the Carribean fusion food truck and the grief yoga session tent when they attempt to blockade the Newcastle coal port proper.
It’s all well and good for Mila to tell us how scared she is of the climate apocalypse. I’m remarkably disinterested in how scared people are. I’m more interested in hearing how people plan to actually combat it. And importantly, as a member of the CC, it’s not Mila’s job to use the CC’s statements to espouse her own position. The role of the CC is to represent the organisation, not its own views. We can panic as much as we want over Elon Musk apocalypses or wasteland planets or what have you. It only amounts to textbook environmentalist doom-and-gloom alarmism if there isn’t a serious, positive program being put forward (which I don’t think Mila rejects – but that it’s overall lacking). Statements put forward by the central committee should be declarative (they should state our positions and politics), to the point, and not rely on people caring about the personal feelings of the people on said committee. For example, my personal feelings on how scary climate change is are overall irrelevant, hence, when I write leaflets about climate and the environment for Rising Tide, I don’t include them. These kinds of emotional appeals are best left to interpersonal conversations, not official statements from the RCO’s elected leadership. These kinds of appeals are also bad, because it’s difficult to argue against someone’s feelings without coming out looking like an asshole.
Mila’s reply relies on a lot of “I believe” statements, but I wrote my reply to a letter from the central committee, not a letter from Mila. While Mila might be defensive as she was the main writer of said letter, I think overall that it’s a weak defence if she has to rely on defending her own personal positions, and not the decisions made by the central committee. In retrospect, I would say that I think the RCO should’ve held a plenary session so that we could’ve collectively discussed our position on Rising Tide, as opposed to the CC deciding for us. In Newcastle, where the RCO engages with Rising Tide the most, we do so somewhat critically, and we don’t do so on the grounds that we think Rising Tide or its supporters need to become communists tomorrow. We’re moreso interested in how Rising Tide develops as more activists join the fold.
I’ll summarise my criticisms of the CC letter as such:
- It neglects the political question of Rising Tide and climate change.
- It’s a weak letter which is overall unconvincing to non-communists (I’ve had as much told to me by non-communist activists).
- It reads as an attempt to pander emptily to Rising Tide attendees.
- It cedes ground to Rising Tide by uncritically accepting their premises and adopting their language.
I appreciate the thought put into the letter by Mila and the CC – but good thoughts alone don’t make good statements.
PARTISAN! 