European Tribune - Community, Politics & Progress.

It's all red under the green.

by Colman
Mon Nov 6th, 2006 at 05:33:39 AM EST

When I talked last week about classes of press criticism of the Stern report, I missed one type, helpfully provided this week-end in the Sunday Independent, one of the largest Irish Sunday papers by Eilis O'Hanlon (a sort of cut-rate Ann Coulter).

Her piece, which I can't find on-line and I didn't tear out of my father's paper, basically proposes that the rump of the Left, their ideology defeated by a victorious West™ after the fall of the USSR see climate change as their last chance to destroy Western Capitalism and the freedom and democracy that it brings. Yup, it's all a big Communist conspiracy.

. Home
. About
. Contact
. New User Guide
. FAQ
. ET Editorial Guidelines
. Search
. Search (Google)

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

It's all red under the green. | 25 comments (25 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: It's all red under the green. (4.00 / 3)

Ve haf come for your freedomz

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Nov 6th, 2006 at 05:38:37 AM EST

Re: It's all red under the green. (none / 1)

A (perhaps) more sophisticated argument by Mick Hume on Spiked:

Whatever the truth about global warming, it is surely a sign of the low political climate today that just about the only thing our leaders can seem passionate about (apart from launching the odd foreign war of course) is the chance to micro-manage our lives, from what we buy in the shops to what we do in the living room last thing at night.

This is rather part of the more respectable 'humourless busybodies' line of attack than the 'tranzi envirocommies' of the loonytarians. But the ideas are similar enough.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Mon Nov 6th, 2006 at 06:18:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

As usual (4.00 / 2)

with successful slanders, there is a ounce of truth underneath that makes the argument credible.

Or maybe it is because the most vocal part of the enviro groups today is definitely on the left. And they are a visible annoyance, and thus it is easy to reduce their credibility by focusing not on their message but on the fact that are clearly on the left, something really bad nowadays.

But the fact is that some of them are hard left and have a pretty explicit anti-capitalist agenda as well. The greens that are willing to work within the system (accepting market based mechanisms) are not well considered in all enviro circles.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Nov 6th, 2006 at 05:54:39 AM EST

Dangerous left (4.00 / 2)

To see an example of the demonization of the left:

For an independent voter the only argument for keeping the Republicans in charge is the prospect of something worse (Cromwell, remember, replaced the Rump Parliament with a military dictatorship). And there are plenty of things to worry about with the Democrats. Their party looks ever more susceptible to the siren call of protectionism. It has no better ideas than the president for dealing with the mess in Iraq (and some worse ones). And robust scrutiny could give way to hotheaded revenge. It would surely do Mr Rumsfeld a power of good to be hauled before opposition-dominated committees from time to time; but talk of impeaching Mr Bush is dangerous. Nancy Pelosi, the worryingly left-leaning representative from San Francisco who is likely to be speaker, will have a tough job keeping control

From the Economist (behind subwall).

There are various ways to understand that sentence, but one way sure is that leaning left is worrying per se.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Nov 6th, 2006 at 05:58:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Left and Right are pretty meaningless concepts (4.00 / 2)

ANY successful society MUST be a combination of community and individual rights and responsibilities. So a leftist position that it is ALL about community or a rightist position that it is ALL about individual rights are equally flawed.

The climate-change debate is especially illuminating when it come to the individual vs community issue. After thousands of years of finding ever more clever and sophisticated ways to start and use fire, we are told we have a decade to find a way to douse at least 80% of those fires.

This will be an astonishing difficult task. It is FAR beyond the abilities of either group of extremists. The market-will-solve-everything folks have to explain how Enron made SO much progress addressing climate change. The lefties have to explain why the Marxist states were such environmental disasters.

That leaves us mixed-economy folks in the middle. And yes, we DO have solutions that have at least a CHANCE of success.

Personally, I just want the extremists to STFU and get out of the way so the grown-ups can run things for a while.

"Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans"

by techno (reply@elegant-technology.com) on Mon Nov 6th, 2006 at 11:33:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As usual (none / 0)

accepting market based mechanisms
I'm on the left (pretty far...) and willing to accept market based mechanisms. As in, I believe "the market" is politically determined, and if we alter the axioms of "the market", there will still be a "the market", though it will be operating under different rules than the current "the market". Profits can still be made, but not the obscene hyper profits of the rich at the expense of everyone else, and at the expense of resource depletion. Work within the system to change the system, as they say. Sustainability now!

by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Mon Nov 6th, 2006 at 06:23:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As usual (none / 0)

Right, someone.

'Market' rhymes with 'political power' and the reverse. But it would probably be somewhat easier to define 'political power' than to define 'market'. Oh no, it isn't: the market is the market as defined by political power. The world is so transparent. This means the end of Clintonism, Blairism, Barrosoism and maybe even Ism-ism.

Light candles, beat drums, pray, go outside and dance naked in the light of the full moon, whatever, to help shift the political balance in the U.S. For once I'll unashamedly let a foreign power dominate a comment on the pages of the European Tribune.

by Quentin on Mon Nov 6th, 2006 at 08:30:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As usual (none / 1)

Interestingly, part of the 'traditional' hard-left thinks that Greens are middle-class fake lefties...

Meanwhile, note the German Greens' story. They emerged from grass-roots environmental groups, who were joined by members of the tiring far-left extra-parlamentarian opposition. The latter, having much more political training, rose and slowly took over almost all leadership positions. The majority of them then formed the (more moderate) 'Realo' wing. Fischer is the prime example, who in the seventies was an activist, squatter, street-fighter in Frankfurt.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Mon Nov 6th, 2006 at 07:55:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's all red under the green. (4.00 / 7)

In a warped way, the Greens as heir to the Communist tradition in that many of them ask deep questions about the roots of the capitalist system.

For a take on this, see Larry Elliot (Economics Editor) in today's Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1939026,00.html

Jerome is pretty snippy about this tradition (generally and in his comment above) but I think it's clear that the evidence is only growing that most of our "quality of life" gains (not to mention gains in agricultural productivity) have come out of the ground in the form of oil/coal/gas. If we are serious about the problems (peak oil and CO2) then we need to at least engage with alternative ways of looking at human development, or we'll never be able to address the problems in a proper manner.

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Mon Nov 6th, 2006 at 06:20:34 AM EST

Re: It's all red under the green. (none / 0)

<correction> way, the Greens AREheir to the Communist tradition

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Mon Nov 6th, 2006 at 06:21:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's all red under the green. (none / 1)

I would say the current economic boom dates not to the Industial Revolution 250 years ago as the article puts it, but to the aftermath of the Black death 650 years ago. Putting it at 250 years ago allows the English to own it.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Nov 6th, 2006 at 06:34:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's all red under the green. (none / 0)

Not the end of the Little Ice Age?

That would be easier to argue than the end of the Black Death.

Jesus died for somebody's sins but not mine - Patti Smith

by dvx (dvx.clt ät gmail dotcom) on Mon Nov 6th, 2006 at 07:02:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's all red under the green. (4.00 / 3)

The Black Death was the beginning of the end for the medieval world. Before it, history was all about morons on horseback hacking at each other while the Church looked on. After it a new merchant middle class that hadn't had much of an influence before started to become more powerful.

It was the merchants who drove the industrial revolution. And it's still the merchants who are setting the agenda today. Only now they're a little more powerful than they used to be.

Capitalism is just another word for merchant-culture. Everyone trades, everyone tries to get rich, and - er - that's it.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Nov 6th, 2006 at 07:34:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's all red under the green. (none / 0)

I'll concede the chronology, naturally, but I still don't see the causal relationship.

Jesus died for somebody's sins but not mine - Patti Smith

by dvx (dvx.clt ät gmail dotcom) on Mon Nov 6th, 2006 at 12:24:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's all red under the green. (none / 1)

After a large collapse you have rapid expansion. The rapid expansion in the 15th century allowed people to shed their moral hungups about usury. After all, in a rapidly growing economy there's less risk in taking a loan on interest. Then in the 16th century a huge influx of precious metals and spices provided a further monetary boost. Then in the 17th century came the reformation and the Protestants left behind the very Catholic idea that money is somehow dirty, with the extreme example of Calvin for whom wealth was a sign of divine grace and thus of moral virtue (his causal chain did run backwards). And in the mid-18th century we get the beginnings of the indusrial revolution, modern economic liberalism, etc. This is a period of continued growth in Europe, though the baton does get passed in succession from the Mediterranean (Genoa, Venice) to Iberia (Spain and Portugal) to France, to the Netherlands, to England.

I just don't see the significance of the little ice age, in the mediterranean basin it didn't have a crippling economic effect. If you're thinking about the Maunder Minimum, it coincided with the reign of Le Roi Soleil, so France was obviously unaffected. And "the end of the little ice age" seems to have happened around 1850?

The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling occurring after a warmer era known as the Medieval climate optimum. Climatologists and historians find it difficult to agree on either the start or end dates of this period. Some confine the Little Ice Age to 1550-1850, lasting approximately from the 14th to the mid-19th centuries while others prefer a span from the 13th to 17th centuries. It is generally agreed that there were three minima, beginning about 1650, about 1770, and 1850, each separated by slight warming intervals.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Nov 6th, 2006 at 01:40:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's all red under the green. (none / 0)

God point, and good to see you commenting!

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Mon Nov 6th, 2006 at 07:59:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's all red under the green. (none / 0)

Work has been evil busy for a while now. Hopefully it's eased off for more than a day...

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Mon Nov 6th, 2006 at 08:03:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's all red under the green. (none / 0)

Except that real world leftism, when in power, has been by several orders of magnitude worse with respect to taking care of the commons. Pollution in communist countries is staggering.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Nov 6th, 2006 at 08:08:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's all red under the green. (none / 0)

Which begs the question whether one accepts the whole compendium of stalinist dictatures as true leftism, and why you don't consider your own Socialist and other countries' Labour or Social Democrat governments over the past one century real world leftism.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Mon Nov 6th, 2006 at 08:16:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's all red under the green. (none / 0)

So, as with famine, democracy is the best defence against environmental destruction.

But the point remains that the traditional left ideologies, including social democracy, were wedded to an industrial idea of progress.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Nov 6th, 2006 at 08:23:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's all red under the green. (none / 1)

as with famine, democracy is the best defence against environmental destruction.

I can't really agree here. The trouble with environmental destruction is that not only does it hit the demos indirectly, sometimes it doesn't hit them. The direct sufferers are oftentimes non-members of the voting body. (Be them animals, plants, foreigner humans, or future children.) That is, democracy is necessary, but not enough. Also, this partly explains why:

the traditional left ideologies, including social democracy, were wedded to an industrial idea of progress.

What the industrial idea of progress shares with the Enlightement view of society (the basis of not only traditional left ideologies but liberalism and nationalism too) is seeing people exist in a vacuum, not embedded in a biosphere with several loopbacks and many other inhabitants.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Mon Nov 6th, 2006 at 12:24:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Socialism vs communism (4.00 / 2)

As far as I can tell (and I am by no means an expert on the topic), the distinction between social democracy and "pure" socialism, or communism (or however else you want to call it) has long been established, and has indeed led to some pretty clean breaks between the two sides at various times in various countries.

The social democratic kind has a long tradition of being in government and indeed working to further the rights and interests of workers and the low/middle classes. The communist kind has only ever been in power (on its own) in what turned out to be pretty nasty dictatorships with consistently horrible track records with respect to the commons. In countries with strogn social democratic traditions (most of Europe), they have become a effective 'reality check' (for better of for worse, YMMV) for the government left if it tended to go too rightist.

What I am saying is that the environmental movement has the same kind of split, and the the existence of the "hard left" kind is used by the right to deconsider environmentalism, just like the existence of the hard left is used to deconsider the left overall, even if its influence in the West is mostly benign and useful (as opposed to its role solo in government, where it has historically been not so benign).

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Nov 6th, 2006 at 08:34:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Socialism vs communism (4.00 / 2)

The communist kind has only ever been in power (on its own) in what turned out to be pretty nasty dictatorships

What about that Indian state? Or Nepal before the royal coup? And re my original point, can all those pretty nasty dictatorships be treated as independent from each other (e.g. hasn't the devolution of the Soviet Union into Stalinism not had an effect on the movements that came to power later elsewhere) and from circumstances (like: war and intervention that begat a war mentality, as Migeru emphasized a couple of times)?

At any rate, the distinction you made is not between the left and non-left, but inside the left.

What I am saying is that the environmental movement has the same kind of split

If you check my comment on the German Greens' origin, you'll see that the picture is more complex. It was the power-conscious ex-violent-radicals who brought it towards the center, while those more radical on environmental issues were more peaceful (in fact many of them peace movement activists) and were pushed to the backbenches. The scale from SUV arsonist to fuel tax specialist (which may appear to you) is not sufficient to describe the different shades and radicalism of Greens, they are a bit different bunch from traditional hard leftists.

the existence of the "hard left" kind is used by the right to deconsider environmentalism

The right uses anything to deconsider leftist ideas, including lies, including about leftists and including about hard leftists, and sometimes it appears centrists and centre-leftists are buying into right-wing rhetoric when protesting their difference. This should be clear to you as per your own experience in debates at dKos (where for some by now you must count as looney-left both on the energy tax and relationship with Muslims). This is not to say that there are no radical environmentalists who say silly things (of course there are), but about taking the Right's judgements not unseriously enough.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Mon Nov 6th, 2006 at 12:27:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Socialism vs communism (none / 1)

A further point about this. You yourself live in a country that had a bloody revolution when one radical ideology ran amok, that time what one would later call liberalism, yet today, most of the ideas of the onetime radicals of the revolution have become reality. Incidentally, 19th century conservatives and centrists did use the example of Jacobite insanity and Napoleon to argue that Enlightement ideals can only lead to petty brutal dictatorships and chaos.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Tue Nov 7th, 2006 at 03:59:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Socialism vs communism (none / 0)

Never mind that Revolutionary Frence found itself instantly under siege by all European monarchies. I don't know of a single revolution that hasn't had to wage an early war against an external power.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Nov 7th, 2006 at 05:09:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It's all red under the green. | 25 comments (25 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]