In response to CPC CENTENARY: THE STRUGGLE FOR WORKING-CLASS ENVIRONMENTALISM
Clearly, the separation between working class economic
realties and hyper-left environmental radicalism can never be bridged. No twisting and turning by the Party can ever
reconcile the two. The Party works
consciously in the selfless service of workers to arm them in their historic
role to command the heights of the nation.
The hyper-left provides theatre, diversion and confusion within workers’
ranks in the vain hope that they will retain positions of privilege within the
bourgeoisie.
The only solution to this dilemma is the defeat of
capitalism and its replacement with the dictatorship of the proletariat. In other words, workers must seize power and
use all the resources of the nation to consolidate power in the defence
of the revolution and our class interests.
Anything short of this is left opportunism. The struggle against imperialism is precisely
the struggle to win and defend socialism in Canada.
Engels also wrote in “Socialism: Utopian and Scientific”;
“…Every form of society and
government then existing, every old traditional notion, was flung into the
lumber-room as irrational; the world had hitherto allowed itself to be led
solely by prejudices; everything in the past deserved only pity and contempt.
Now, for the first time, appeared the light of day, the kingdom of reason;
henceforth superstition, injustice, privilege, oppression, were to be
superseded by eternal truth, eternal Right, equality based on Nature and the
inalienable rights of man.
We know today that this
kingdom of reason was nothing more than the idealized kingdom of the
bourgeoisie; that this eternal Right found its realization in bourgeois
justice; that this equality reduced itself to bourgeois equality before the
law; that bourgeois property was proclaimed as one of the essential rights of
man; and that the government of reason, the Contrat Social of Rousseau, came
into being, and only could come into being, as a democratic bourgeois republic.
The great thinkers of the 18th century could, no more than their predecessors,
go beyond the limits imposed upon them by their epoch.”
Party policy built on “environmentalism” as the central
issue cannot be viewed as serious or partisan working-class politics. Such subordination to left radicalism is an
abandonment class politics and the real needs of workers into a world of make
believe. It places at the core of
workers’ struggles for better living conditions in “the idealized kingdom of
the bourgeoisie”.
The Party’s early policies of “environmental sovereignty”,
such as an east-west power grid, always recognized the historic role of the
working class in the development of the country. These policies viewed development and expansion
on the basis of an independent nation and the struggle for its most important
sections of the economy to be subordinated first and foremost in the service of
workers’ needs. Party policies never
voluntarily ceded whole sections of the economy to “social activism”.
In fact, Tim Buck clearly articulated the leading
position of the working class and the role of communists and “progressive
forces” in the struggle for an independent Canada;
“…The battle for unity and
class consciousness is the essence of the historical development of the working
class. Class consciousness and united action are the keys to working-class
leadership of the nation.
“…All the possibilities
inherent within the profit system have been developed; it has become now a
barrier to continued Canadian development on a rising level to the full
capacity of our abundantly endowed country and our productive people. Through
its inherent contradictions which are now acute, the profit system leads to
economic crisis and imperialist war. For the working class the only permanent
solution of these contradictions is through the struggle to raise themselves up
from the position of an oppressed and exploited class to the position of the
ruling class, and the abolition of the profit system.
“…Canadians will achieve
socialism by their own path, which will be determined by the traditions and the
then prevailing institutions and class relationships in Canada. It is quite
evident, however, that the socialist transformation of our country can be
achieved only if the working class and its allies gain real political power. To
establish socialism, the state must become an instrument in the hands of the
democratic people united around and led by the working class. It must be an instrument
of the people for the organization, direction and defence of the new socialist
society, instead of, as it is now, the instrument by which the capitalist class
maintains its heartless exploitation of the masses of the people and its
ruthless suppression of their democratic aspirations.” Tim Buck - Thirty
Years – 1922-1952, The Story of the Communist Movement in Canada, Chapter 19:
We Fight for Canada!
Early on the Party recognized that pollution (the term used
during that period) caused by capitalist industrial production posed a grave
threat to workers’ health and happiness.
The Party understood that industry in the possession of the capitalist
class posed the central risk to workers’ health and working conditions. These policies clearly reflected that
understanding.
However, the Party did not place the struggle to reduce
pollution above the general struggle to control the means of production and
exploit the resources of the nation in the interests of workers. The program of the Party was, and needs to be
again, for the struggle to an independent Canada. In contemporary terminology,
“environmentalism” was viewed as a plank in the struggle and not the struggle
in and of itself. The struggle for
socialism carries with it the struggle for better stewardship of resources and
nature. The fight for and independent
socialist Canada is never subordinated to the struggle for the environment.
One may argue that the conditions have changed. That the risk to the “planet’s” survival is
so great, so urgent because of this new “existential” threat, that all
forces must unite and “pull together”.
These theories are similar to the those of “super imperialism” and the
new “intersectional” theories that place women’s, First Nations’ and
marginalized peoples of colour, etc. as struggles that can be solved within the
context of capitalism. They place the
burden of “social justice” on the individual and absolve capitalism and its
overarching and singular determining role in the environmental crisis.
This confusion, this separation of the environmental crisis
facing workers from the class struggle, as viewing “the environment as a
stand-alone issue” leads to all manners of unscientific rational and
abandonment of the development of the nation as the basis for solving the
crucial issues of the working class– including the environmental crisis.
It is clearly evident that the Party remains a prisoner of
the left radicalism, entombed in the idea of building a “people coalition”
above the independent struggle of workers as the leading voice. Defining the environment as a “stand-alone
issue” leads to public admissions of the Party’s subordination to left radicalism
and theories of “green socialism”. It
leads to statements such as;
“…the lack of discussion about
the environment as a stand-alone issue was conspicuous, particularly at a time
when public opinion (especially among progressives) was increasingly aroused by
issues of environmental degradation.” Dave McKee, CPC CENTENARY: THE
STRUGGLE FOR WORKING-CLASS ENVIRONMENTALISM, April 30, 2021.
Viewed from a class perspective one would need to conclude
that “public opinion (especially among progressives)” should form the basis of
Party policy and class struggle. No
where does the author conclude party policy should be formed from the demands
and interests of wage workers who toil in those industries identified as
environmental offenders.
The fact that “progressives” are not defined and is a non-Marxist
unscientific term that dismisses the leading role of the working class and obfuscates
the class struggle into an above class issue of “everyone is in this together”
bourgeoise nonsense. It abandons the
wage workers in resource and energy industries to the radical populism of the
reactionary right.
So is the dilemma that Alberta workers are faced with in an out-of-control
pandemic where they are forced to work in unsafe conditions and the right has
exploited the energy sector workers for their anti-working class causes to the
point where energy sector workers are demonized and turned into caricatures of
dumb, racist and unkempt.
The author then concludes, as if to reinforce, the above
that;
“…these positions were largely
reiterations of social movement demands, rather than a set of policies
reflecting a Marxist analysis of the environmental crisis. There remained the
need to develop working-class environmental policies and use those to engage
the environmental movement to give stronger and more radical (anti-monopoly and
anti-imperialist) shape to struggles which were increasing in their scope and
intensity.”
Again, the Party clearly seeks guidance to “develop working
class policies” through engagement of the “environmental movement” without
defining who that is, workers who work in the industry are not to be consulted. By placing in parenthesis “anti-monopoly and
anti-imperialist” the author seeks to convince the reader that there is an
inherent anti-monopoly character to environmentalism and that radicalism is
analogous to working class struggle.
Such are the theories that form in the universities, left radical think
tanks and popularized by the “left” social media darlings and lecture circuit
apparatchiks.
There is an infinite pool of information that shows that
investment capital is moving into “green” technologies. Billions of dollars are being shifted into
new technologies. These industries are
dominated by the same investment houses and capitalists that have dominated the
old carbon intensive economies.
To conclude that environmentalism is anti-monopoly is
greenwashing the class struggle into cheerleaders for this or that “green”
technology. Workers extracting copper,
rare earth metals, those workers that are assembling the planet saving EV’s
remain exploited by the same class that were, and continue to exploit, workers
in the carbon intensive industries. It
should come as no surprise that the shift to EV’s is met with a $26/hr. wage at
GM Oshawa. But we should be thankful
that the existential threat is well under control by concerned corporate
citizens.
Similarly, environmentalism is not inherently
anti-imperialist in nature. One only has
to look at Unifor’s call to the federal government to conclude the F35 Pratt
& Whitney engine contract. While Unifor
calls to “[r]einforce the commitment to the Industrial Technological
Benefits Program through the Joint Strike Fighter Capability Project and expand
the program to additional military purchases when a Canadian made option is not
available” in the same document it calls to “[e]xpedite the details of
the new Strategic Innovation Fund – Net Zero Accelerator with specific targets
for reducing aerospace related emissions in both commercial and defence sub
sectors.” Canada can now have a
green imperialist war.
Then the author makes the claim that the task to identify
and develop a working-class environmental policy began in the mid-nineties with
the Party’s two “scientific observations”! While making this claim the author takes a
swipe at the Soviet Union and the socialist system placing it on even ground
with capitalism;
“The first was based on the
experience of environmental degradation in the Soviet Union and other socialist
states.”
Clearly the author has not studied the history of Soviet
environmentalism, the development and relations of between imperialist states
and socialist states during that period nor the legacy of the destruction of
the USSR by fascist Germany during the Second World War where the Soviet Union
bore the brunt of the losses and made heroic strides in returning its economy
to the service of workers.
Such omissions cannot be taken as “scientific” or as a
serious contribution to the class struggle.
In fact, such statements only serve to ingratiate the Party with the
eco-socialist crowd. The Soviet Union
was the bulwark of the anti-imperialist struggle and lead a movement along with
the socialist states that provided the main defence against US-NATO drive to
nuclear war and the great environmental calamity of all – nuclear winter and
the destruction humankind.
The Soviet Union, while suffering as all nations did in not
fully understanding the effects of certain industrial processes and chemicals
on the environment, was the global leader in the management, scientific study
and technical implementations of environmental stewardship. The Soviet Union was starved of scientific
cooperation with leading capitalist nations but none the less was on the path
to solving these issues. To suggest
otherwise is tawdry journalism.
The Soviet Union fought an asymmetrical war that eroded its
socialist character and allowed anti-revolutionary theories to take root. The USSR confronted economic and scientific
blockades, it was excluded from trading with imperialist nations on even terms,
it was confronted with massive military buildups on its borders, as well as
confronting the most outrageous claims of its social system. Through all of this the Soviet Union and the
socialist block of states were subjected to external anti-communist rhetoric in
the labour and “progress” left movements in the capitalist nations.
It is evident by the statement above that the Party’s
understanding and “critique” of socialism and the Soviet Union during that
period is no different then the cheap reactionary Sinophobia of the current
period. Kimbal Cariou is cited by the
author, without ever pointing to the source, as observing;
“Industrial and other forms of
economic activity cannot expand indefinitely without endangering the biosphere
in which we live, and exhausting our finite supply of resources … We need to
develop a concept of socialism which is not based on an ever-increasing
accumulation of material goods.”
Cariou suggests that the Soviet people should not have been entitled
to the development of their country in the manner that they deem
beneficial. Cariou suggests that the
Soviet people should not have been entitled to the same standard of living, or aspire
to the same quality of life, as capitalist nations, who by the way received the
bulk of their privileges on the backs of the exploited workers of the world and
the destruction of socialism. It says
very plainly, “If only the Soviet Union would have listened to us Canadian
communists, they would have got it right”.
This hubris, this above class attitude remains a fundamental weakness of
the Canadian Communist Party leadership which leads to left opportunism and an
abandonment of independent struggle. It
leads to radical environmentalism.
It also leads to confusion and imprecise language within the
development of the Party’s environmental policies such as the following
statement;
“…the Party program that was
updated in 2001 specifically identified that resolving the tension between
workers’ economic demands and the need to protect the environment was a key
area of work to advance the revolutionary struggle”
Clearly the Party’s statement suggests resolving the
“tension” of “workers’ economic demands” is the main contradiction between the
protection of the environment and the advancement of revolutionary
struggle.
Workers’ economic demands have nothing to do with the
degradation of the environment. It is solely
the affects of monopoly capital on the environment as it seeks to extract more
profit though the intensification of industrial practices, abrogation of
responsibility of basic environmental standards and regulations (won by workers
through great effort) and from the unpaid labour time of workers.
To get out of this dichotomy the Party makes the statement;
“…resource-based unions, have
bought into the corporate agenda that pits environmental protection against
employment.”
Again, the failure “protect the environment” is placed at
the feet of workers for not recognizing “that the protection of the
environment is in the long-term interests of sustainable employment”. These “errors” committed by workers “buying
in to the corporate agenda” and not defending the environment is a source of
befuddlement for the radical left.
How can workers choose their immediate needs of employment
to pay for rent, food, clothing, education and medical concerns over the
greater existential treat to the planet?
These radical left elements argue that workers economic interests should
be put aside for the greater the good. There
is collateral damage and that they should receive “equal work in other less polluting
industry with no loss in take home pay.”
What worker would voluntarily give up employment? These theories are the theories of ideologues
who are far removed from the working class.
Ask all of the Suncor workers to go on strike to “shut down the Tar
Sands”. What do you think the answer
would be?
Further twisting in attempt to resolve this dilemma the
Party suggests that;
“…the greater scale of
capitalist exploitation and crises means that environmental concerns are now
inescapably linked to working-class living conditions…”.
The conditions of the working class are not linked to
“environmental concerns”. This is a nonsense
statement that means absolutely nothing.
The conditions of the working class are the result of monopoly capital’s
drive to halt the falling rate of profit at the expense of workers wages,
intensification of industrial practices and privatization of public programs
and institutions, of which the environment is a part. The correct formulation would be, “capitalist
exploitation results in deteriorating living conditions of the working class”.
Placed in the service of workers all the resources of the country
would be managed in accordance with the needs of workers. This will result in the best management
practices of all resources and with the characteristics and needs of Canadian
labour.
The claim that the Party’s 2009 “People Energy Plan” has
resolved these contradictions by recognizing the “greatly changed economic and
environmental conditions”. The author
concludes that;
“Perhaps the most notable
element of the People’s Energy Plan was its call for a deliberate economic
transition away from fossil fuel use. This includes a moratorium on development
of tar sands and shale gas operations and the progressive closure of existing
ones, opposition to oil and pipelines, an end to coal-fired and a massive
program to ensure a just economic and social transition for affected workers
and communities.”
Again, the statement
without context requires the reader to assume that such a program can be
implemented within the context of current productive relationships and that all
the resources of the country will not be needed in such a “massive
program”. This statement clearly
suggests that the author does not fully understand the unbreakable relationship
between human labour and the transformation of the environment. On the basis of exploitation this
relationship remains antagonistic, uneven and unresolvable.
Placing a moratorium on this or that resource will not
change the relationship between capital and labour. There is already an abundance of evidence
that suggests the transition to less carbon intensive forms of energy
production are having unintended consequences.
That the transition to net-zero solutions and the transfers of capital
into those industries are leaving huge sections of workers abandoned and
without employment, or in more precarious and less stable industries.
Workers free of the burdens of exploitative capital will
transform all existing and future productive relationships into sole domain of
labour. This is to say that the
scientific and creative capacity of labour will be employed to solve the most
seemingly difficult tasks.
Clearly the author has either overlooked or failed to
mention that the Party’s policy towards Alberta and Saskatchewan’s oil sands
was not the “progressive closure” of existing facilities but, according to the 2015 election platform of the
Communist Party of Canada; on the one hand “Adopt a People’s Energy Plan,
including public ownership and democratic control of all energy and natural
resource extraction, production and distribution” and on the other, “Freeze and
reduce energy exports, block new development of the Alberta tar sands, and
close these operations within five years…, no to the Enbridge, Kinder Morgan,
Keystone XL, Line 9 and Energy East pipelines, and to oil and gas exploration
and shipping on the west coast, put a moratorium on the exploration and
development of shale gas resources”.
Along with the Party’s call for a moratorium on nuclear
power and their opposition to Site C one is left scratching their head
understand how the Party plans to implement their “Keep Industrial Jobs in
Canada” call. The Party calls to, “end
the sell-out of manufacturing and secondary industry and strengthen the
value-added manufacturing sector, expand employment in industry by
nationalizing the steel and auto industries, building a Canadian car, and
expanding rapid transit production, promote stronger machine tool,
ship-building, agricultural implement and household appliance industries”.
Such a policies would mean economic ruin for tens of
thousands of workers and destroy whole communities. These are similar theories
to those advocated by Jim Stanford at the Centre of Future Work. The difference is that Stanford has placed a
more serious and science based effort in understanding the real conditions of the
resource industries and workers tied to those industries.
The confusion within the ranks of the Communist Party of
Canada leadership in respect to the environment, industrial policies, and an
independent and sovereign Canada can not be resolved by engaging in left
radicalism.
Workers will resolve all these issues. The impediment to these issues is not “human
activity” it is the exploitation of workers by monopoly capital. There is enough capital and human labour
power to resolve all these contradictions.
However, the working class will need to employ all the resources at our
disposal.
Socialism in Canada can not materialize without bitter
struggle. Socialism will not be formed
without flaws. The working class faces
all forms of hostility from within and without.
Suggesting that Canada should voluntarily give up any resources in that
struggle toward socialism is not understanding the nature of the struggle and
the real material conditions present in the struggle.
All struggles toward socialism take on the characteristics
and historical conditions present at that time with in the capital and labour. All conditions are prepared by capitalism for
the working class to assume power. It is
this power relation that will determine the course of economic development of
the nation.
The historical conditions in Canada are characterized by its
proximity to the world’s leading imperialist power the United States. The struggle to break the Canadian working
class from US monopoly capital can only be on the basis of independent economic
development. That will require all the
tools and resources that the nation can muster and placed in the hands of the
leading and most advanced sections of the working class at that given
historical period to bring about such change.
It will not occur by the whimsy of this or that left radical theory.
