Towards Working Class Environmentalism

 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appeared the light of day, the kingdom of reason; henceforth superstition, injustice, privilege, oppression, were to be superseded by eternal truth, eternal Right, equality based on Nature and the inalienable rights of man.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.

To place the Party on the correct course toward the development of a correct working class national energy, environment and industrial development program the Party would be better served by speaking directly with workers who toil in these industries and abandon the theories of left radical intellectual eco-socialist university crowd.