Bill Fletcher, Fernando Gapasin : Solidarity Divided

http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520261563

The Crisis in Organized Labor and a New Path toward Social Justice, A new direction for labor by two of its leading activist intellectuals

The U.S. trade union movement finds itself today on a global battlefield filled with landmines and littered with the bodies of various social movements and struggles. Candid, incisive, and accessible, Solidarity Divided is a critical examination of labor's current crisis and a plan for a bold new way forward into the twenty-first century. Bill Fletcher and Fernando Gapasin, two longtime union insiders whose experiences as activists of color grant them a unique vantage on the problems now facing U.S. labor, offer a remarkable mix of vivid history and probing analysis. They chart changes in U.S. manufacturing, examine the onslaught of globalization, consider the influence of the environment on labor, and provide the first broad analysis of the fallout from the 2000 and 2004 elections on the U.S. labor movement. Ultimately calling for a wide-ranging reexamination of the ideological and structural underpinnings of today's labor movement, this is essential reading for understanding how the battle for social justice can be fought and won.

Bill Fletcher, Jr., co-founder of the Center for Labor Renewal, is a columnist and long-time activist. He served as President of TransAfrica Forum and was formerly the Education Director and later Assistant to the President of the AFL-CIO. He is the author of The Indispensable Ally: Black Workers and the Formation of the Congress of Industrial Relations, 1934-1941. Fernando Gapasin is a Central Labor Council President, Labor Educator, author, and former professor of Industrial Relations and Chicana/o Studies at Pennsylvania State University and the University of California, Los Angeles.

The Next American Revolution : Sustainable Activism for the Twenty-First Century

http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520269248

A world dominated by America and driven by cheap oil, easy credit, and conspicuous consumption is unraveling before our eyes. In this powerful, deeply humanistic book, Grace Lee Boggs, a legendary figure in the struggle for justice in America, shrewdly assesses the current crisis—political, economical, and environmental—and shows how to create the radical social change we need to confront new realities. A vibrant, inspirational force, Boggs has participated in all of the twentieth century’s major social movements—for civil rights, women’s rights, workers’ rights, and more. She draws from seven decades of activist experience, and a rigorous commitment to critical thinking, to redefine “revolution” for our times. From her home in Detroit, she reveals how hope and creativity are overcoming despair and decay within the most devastated urban communities. Her book is a manifesto for creating alternative modes of work, politics, and human interaction that will collectively constitute the next American Revolution.

Grace Lee Boggs, the recipient of many human rights and lifetime achievement awards, is an activist, writer, and speaker. She is celebrated in the National Women’s Hall of Fame. Boggs is the coauthor, with James Boggs, of Revolution and Evolution in the Twentieth Century and the author of Living for Change: An Autobiography. The daughter of Chinese immigrants, she is 95 years old.

Green Is the New Red: An Insider's Account of a Social Movement Under Siege

http://www.citylights.com/book/?GCOI=87286100839230

By Will Potter

At a time when everyone is going green, most people are unaware that the FBI is using anti-terrorism resources to target environmentalists and animal rights activists. The courts are being used to push conventional boundaries of what constitutes "terrorism" and to hit nonviolent activists with disproportionate sentences. Some have faced terrorism charges for simply chalking slogans on the sidewalk.

Like the Red Scare, this "Green Scare" is about fear and intimidation, using a word—"eco-terrorist"—to push a political agenda, instill fear and silence dissent. The animal rights and environmental movements directly threaten corporate profits every time activists encourage people to go vegan, to stop driving, to consume fewer resources and live simply. Their boycotts are damaging, and corporations and the politicians who represent them know it. In many ways, the Green Scare, like the Red Scare, can be seen as a culture war, a war of values.

Will Potter outlines the political, legal, extra-legal, and public relations strategies that are being used to threaten even acts of nonviolent civil disobedience with the label of "terrorism." Here is a guided tour into the world of radical activism that introduces the real people behind the headlines and tells the story of how everyday people are being prevented from speaking up for what they believe in.

"Will Potter unveils this complex movement with its virtues and its flaws, the courage of a few and the false bravado of others. I see this book as the definitive overview of the genesis of what is emerging as the most important social movement in human history – the war to save ourselves from ourselves." --Captain Paul Watson, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society

"If we are to survive capitalism's death grip on our discourse and on our lives, it will be in great measure due to the work of people like Will Potter. His courage and integrity, which set him apart from most journalists, are evident throughout this important book, and throughout all of his other crucial work. Thank you, Will Potter." --Derrick Jensen, author of Endgame and many other books

"Part history, part action thriller and courtroom drama, part memoir, Green is the New Red plunges us into the wild, unruly, and entirely inspirational world of extreme environmental activism. Will Potter, participant-observer and partisan-reporter, is the perfect guide, unpacking with wit and skill the most elusive concepts—his discussion of 'terrorism' as myth and symbol is the finest I've ever read. He takes us inside the first moments of a movement in the making—idealistic, hopeful, deeply human in its aspirations and its oh-so-human failings—and he reports brilliantly on a ruling power willing to hollow out any sense of authentic democracy in its futile attempt to maintain dominance, privilege, and their arid version of reality. Green is the New Red is an indispensable book that will change the way we think about commitment, the limits of protest, and the possibility of radical change." --Bill Ayers

David F. Noble: The Corporate Climate Coup

DGR: In my article entitled Global Warming: Truth or Dare? I provided a critical assessment of global warming science and its use and argued that the myth of a global warming dominant threat serves power and neutralizes activists who could otherwise effectively address the real problems, at the root. My article inspired renowned historian of science and technology David Noble to research the corporate and finance drivers of the Global Warming agenda and to write the following article. [See other related articles at ACTIVIST CLIMATE GUY.]

Don't breathe. There's a total war on against CO2 emissions, and you are releasing CO2 with every breath. The multi-media campaign against global warming now saturating our senses, which insists that an increasing CO2 component of greenhouse gases is the enemy, takes no prisoners: you are either with us or you are with the "deniers." No one can question the new orthodoxy or dare risk the sin of emission. If Bill Clinton were running for president today he would swear he didn't exhale.

How did we get here? How did such an arcane subject only yesterday of interest merely to a handful of scientific specialists so suddenly come to dominate our discourse? How did scientific speculation so swiftly erupt into ubiquitous intimations of apocalypse? These are not hypothetical questions but historical questions, and they have answers. Such events as these do not just happen; they are made to happen. On the whole our ideas tend not to be our own ideas; rarely do we come up with them ourselves but rather imbibe them from the world around us. This is especially obvious when our ideas turn out to be the same as nearly everyone else's, even people we've never met or communicated with. Where did this idea about the urgent crisis of global warming and CO2 emissions come from and get into our heads, given that so few of us have ever read, or even tried to read, a single scientific paper about greenhouse gases? Answering such a question is not as difficult as it might seem, for the simple reason that it takes a great amount of reach and resources to place so alien an idea in so many minds simultaneously so quickly, and the only possessors of such capacity and means are the government and the corporations, together with their multi-media machinery. To effect such a significant shift in attention, perception, and belief requires a substantial, and hence visible and demonstrable, effort.

Until quite recently most people were either unaware of or confused and relatively unconcerned about this issue, despite a growing consensus among scientists and environmentalists about the possible dangers of climate change. Global warming activists, such as AI Gore, were quick to place the blame for that popular ignorance, confusion, and lack of concern on a well-financed corporate propaganda campaign by oil and gas companies and their front organizations, political cronies, advertising and public relations agencies, and media minions, which lulled people into complacency by sowing doubt and skepticism about worrisome scientific claims. And, of course, they were right; there was such a corporate campaign, which has by now been amply documented. What global warming activists conveniently failed to point out, however, is that their own, alarmist, message has been drummed into our minds by the very same means, albeit by different corporate hands. This campaign, which might well prove the far more significant, has heretofore received scant notice.

Over the last decade and a half we have been subjected to two competing corporate campaigns, echoing different time-honored corporate strategies and reflecting a split within elite circles. The issue of climate change has been framed from both sides of this elite divide, giving the appearance that there are only these two sides. The first campaign, which took shape in the late 1980's as part of the triumphalist “globalization" offensive, sought to confront speculation about climate change head-on by denying, doubting, deriding, and dismissing distressing scientific claims which might put a damper on enthusiasm for expansive capitalist enterprise. It was modelled after and to some extent built upon the earlier campaign by the tobacco industry to sow skepticism about mounting evidence of the deleterious health-effects of smoking. In the wake of this "negative" propaganda effort, any and all critics of climate change and global warming have been immediately identified with this side of the debate.

The second -“positive”- campaign, which emerged a decade later, in the wake of Kyoto and at the height of the anti-globalization movement, sought to get out ahead of the environmental issue by affirming it only to hijack it and turn it to corporate advantage. Modelled on a century of corporate liberal cooptation of popular reform movements and regulatory regimes, it aimed to appropriate the issue in order to moderate its political implications, thereby rendering it compatible with corporate economic, geopolitical, and ideological interests. The corporate climate campaign thus emphasized the primacy of "market-based” solutions while insisting upon uniformity and predictability in mandated rules and regulations. At the same time it hyped the global climate issue into an obsession, a totalistic preoccupation with which to divert attention from the radical challenges of the global-justice movement. In the wake of this campaign, any and all opponents of the “deniers” have been identified – and, most importantly, have wittingly or unwittingly identified themselves – with the corporate climate crusaders.

The first campaign, dominant throughout the 1990's, suffered somewhat from exposure and became relatively moribund early in the Bush II era, albeit without losing influence within the White House (and the Prime Minister's Office). The second, having contributed to the diffusion of a radical movement, has succeeded in generating the current hysteria about global warming, now safely channeled into corporate-friendly agendas at the expense of any serious confrontations with corporate power. Its media success has aroused the electorate and compelled even die-hard deniers to disingenuously cultivate a greener image. Meanwhile, and most important, the two opposing campaigns have together effectively obliterated any space for rejecting them both.

In the late 1980's the world's most powerful corporations launched their "globalization" revolution, incessantly invoking the inevitable beneficence of free trade and, in the process, relegating environmental issues to the margins and reducing the environmentalist movement to rearguard actions. Interest in climate change nevertheless continued to grow. In 1988, climate scientists and policy-makers established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) to keep abreast of the matter and issue periodic reports. At a meeting in Toronto three hundred scientists and policy-makers from forty-eight countries issued a “call for action” on the reduction of CO2 emissions. The following year fifty oil, gas, coal, and automobile and chemical manufacturing companies and their trade associations formed the Global Change Coalition (GCC), with the help of public relations giant Burson-Marsteller. Its stated purpose was to sow doubt about scientific claims and forestall political efforts to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. The GCC gave millions of dollars in political contributions and in support of a public relations campaign warning that misguided efforts to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions through restrictions on the burning of fossil fuels would undermine the promise of globalization and cause economic ruin. GCC efforts effectively put the climate change issue on hold.

Meanwhile, following an indigenous uprising in Chiapas in January, 1994, set for the first day of the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement, the anti-globalization movement erupted in world-wide protest against market capitalism and corporate depredation, including the despoiling of the environment. Within five years the movement had grown in cohesion, numbers, momentum and militancy and coalesced in designated “global days of action" around the world, particularly in direct actions at G8 summits and meetings of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the new World Trade Organization, reaching its peak in the shutting down the WTO meetings in Seattle in November, 1999. The movement, which consisted of a wide range of diverse grass-roots organizations united in opposition to the global "corporate agenda,” shook the elite globalization campaign to its roots. It was in this charged context that the signatories of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which had been formulated by representatives from 155 nations at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, met at the end of 1997 in Kyoto and established the so-called Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through carbon targets and trading. The Kyoto treaty, belatedly ratified only in late 2004, was the sole international agreement on climate change and immediately became the bellwether of political debate about global warming.

Corporate opposition anticipated Kyoto. In the summer of 1997 the U.S. Senate passed a unanimous resolution demanding that any such treaty must include the participation and compliance of developing countries, particularly emerging economic powers like China, India, and Brazil, which were nevertheless excluded in the first round of the Kyoto Protocol. Corporate opponents of Kyoto in the GCC, with the swelling global justice movement as a back-drop, condemned the treaty as a “socialist" or "third-world” plot against the developed countries of the West.

The convergence of the global justice movement and Kyoto, however, prompted some of the elite to rethink and regroup, which created a split in corporate ranks regarding the issue of climate change. Defections from the GCC began in 1997 and within three years had come to include such major players as Dupont, BP, Shell, Ford, Daimler-Chrysler, and Texaco. Among the last GCC hold-outs were Exxon, Mobil, Chevron, and General Motors. (In 2000, the GCC finally went out of business but other like-minded corporate front organizations were created to carry on the "negative” campaign, which continues.)

Those who split off from the GCC quickly coalesced in new organizations. Among the first of these was the Pew Center for Global Climate Change. funded by the philanthropic offering of the Sun Oil/Sunoco fortune. The board of the new Center was chaired by Theodore Roosevelt IV, great grandson of the Progressive Era president (and conservation icon) and managing director of the Lehman Brothers investment banking firm. Joining him on the board were the managing director of the Castle-Harlan investment firm and the former CEO of Northeast Utilities, as well as veteran corporate lawyer Frank E. Loy, who had been the Clinton administration's chief negotiator on trade and climate change.

At its inception the Pew Center established the Business Environmental Leadership Council, chaired by Loy. Early council members included Sunoco, Dupont, Duke Energy, BP, Royal Dutch/Shell, Duke Energy, Ontario Power Generation, DTE (Detroit Edison), and Alcan. Marking their distance from the GCC, the Council declared “we accept the views of most scientists that enough is known about the science and environmental impacts of climate change for us to take actions to address the consequences;” “Businesses can and should take concrete steps now in the U.S. and abroad to assess opportunities for emission reductions. . . and invest in new, more efficient products, practices, and technologies." The Council emphasized that climate change should be dealt with through "market-based mechanisms” and by adopting “reasonable policies,” and expressed the belief “that companies taking early action on climate strategies and policy will gain sustained competitive advantage over their peers."

Early in 2000, “world business leaders" convening at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland declared that “climate change is the greatest threat facing the world.” That fall, many of the same players, including Dupont, BP, Shell, Suncor, Alcan, and Ontario Power Generation, as well as the French aluminum manufacturer Pechiney, joined forces with the U.S. advocacy group Environmental Defense to form the Partnership for Climate Action. Like-minded Environmental Defense directors included the Pew Center's Frank Loy and principals from the Carlyle Group, Berkshire Partners, and Morgan Stanley and the CEO of Carbon Investments. Echoing the Pew Center mission, and barely a year after the “battle of Seattle" had shut down the World Trade Organization in opposition to the corporate globalization regime, the new organization reaffirmed its belief in the beneficence of market capitalism. “The primary purpose of the Partnership is to champion market-based mechanisms as a means of achieving early and credible action on reducing greenhouse gas emissions that is efficient and cost-effective." Throughout its initial announcement this message was repeated like a mantra: “the benefits of market mechanisms," “market-oriented rules," “market-based programs can provide the means to simultaneously achieve both environmental protection and economic development goals,” "the power of market mechanisms to contribute to climate change solutions.” In the spring of 2002, the Partnership's first report proudly stated that “the companies of the PCA are in the vanguard of the new field of greenhouse gas management.” “The PCA is not only achieving real reductions in global warming emissions,” the report noted, "but also providing a body of practical experience, demonstrating how to reduce pollution while continuing to profit.”

This potential for profit-making from climate change gained the avid attention of investment bankers, some of whom were central participants in the PCA through their connections with the boards of the Pew Center and Environmental Defense. Goldman Sachs became the leader of the pack; with its ownership of power plants through Cogentrix and clients like BP and Shell, the Wall Street firm was most attuned to the opportunities. In 2004 the company began to explore the “market-making” possibilities and the following year established its Center for Environmental Markets, with the announcement that “Goldman Sachs will aggressively seek market-making and investment opportunities in environmental markets;" The firm indicated that the Center would engage in research to develop public policy options for establishing markets around climate change, including the design and promotion of regulatory solutions for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The firm also indicated that Goldman Sachs would “take the lead in identifying investment opportunities in renewable energy;” that year the investment banking firm acquired Horizon Wind Energy, invested in photovoltaics with Sun Edison, arranged financing for Northeast Biofuels, and purchased a stake in logen Corporation, which pioneered the conversion of straw, corn stalks, and switchgrass into ethanol. The company also dedicated itself “to act as a market maker in emissions trading” of CO2 (and SO2) as well as in such areas as “weather derivatives,” "renewable energy credits," and other “climate-related commodities.” “We believe," Goldman Sachs proclaimed, “that the management of risks and opportunities arising from climate change and its regulation will be particularly significant and will garner increasing attention from capital market participants.”

Among those capital market participants was former U.S. Vice President AI Gore. Gore had a long-standing interest in environmental issues and had represented the U.S. in Kyoto. He also had equally long-standing family ties with the energy industry through his father's friendship with Armand Hammer and his financial interest in Hammer’s company Occidental Petroleum, which the son inherited. In 2004, as Goldman Sachs was gearing up its climate-change market-making initiatives in quest of green profits, Gore teamed up with Goldman Sachs executives David Blood, Peter Harris, and Mark Ferguson to establish the London-based environment investment firm Generation Investment Management (GIM), with Gore and Blood at its helm. In May, 2005 Gore, representing GIM, addressed the Institutional Investor Summit on Climate Risk and emphasized the need for investors to think in the long term and to integrate environmental issues into their equity analyses. "I believe that integrating the issues relating to climate change into your analysis of what stocks are worth investing in, how much, and for how long, is simply good business,” Gore explained to the assembled investors. Applauding a decision to move in this direction announced the day before by General Electric's CEO Jeff Immelt, Gore declared that “we are here at an extraordinarily hopeful moment. . .when the leaders in the business sector begin to make their moves.” By that time Gore was already at work on his book about global warming, An Inconvenient Truth, and that same spring he began preparations to make a film about it.

The book and the film of the same name both appeared in 2006, with enormous promotion and immediate success in the corporate entertainment industry (the film eventually garnering an Academy Award). Both vehicles vastly extended the reach of the climate change market-makers, whose efforts they explicitly extolled. “More and more U.S. business executives are beginning to lead us in the right direction," Gore exulted, adding “there is also a big change underway in the investment community.” The book and film faithfully reflected and magnified the central messages of the corporate campaign. Like his colleagues at the Pew Center and the Partnership for Climate Action, Gore stressed the importance of using market mechanisms to meet the challenge of global warming. "One of the keys to solving the climate crisis," he wrote, “involves finding ways to use the powerful force of market capitalism as an ally.” Gore repeated his admonition to investors about the need for long-term investment strategies and for integrating environmental factors into business calculations, proudly pointing out how business leaders had begun “taking a broader view of how business can sustain their profitability over time.” The one corporate executive actually quoted in the book, in a two-page spread, was General Electric's CEO Jeffrey Immelt, who succinctly explained the timing and overriding purpose of the exercise: “This is a time period where environmental improvement is going to lead to profitability.”

By the beginning of 2007 the corporate campaign had significantly scaled up its activity, with the creation of several new organizations. The Pew Center and Partnership for Climate Action now created a political lobbying entity, the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP). USCAP membership included the key players in the initial effort, such as BP, Dupont, the Pew Center, and Environmental Defense, and added others, including GE, Alcoa, Caterpillar, Duke Energy, Pacific Gas and Electric, Florida Power and Light, and PNM, the New Mexico and Texas utilities holding company. PNM had recently joined with Microsoft's Bill Gates' Cascade Investments to form a new unregulated energy company focused on growth opportunities in Texas and the western U.S. PNM's CEO Jeff Sterba also chaired the Climate Change Task Force of the Edison Electric Institute. Also joining USCAP was the Natural Resources Defense Council, the World Resources Institute, and the investment banking firm Lehman Brothers whose managing director Theodore Roosevelt IV chaired the board of the Pew Center and was soon also to chair Lehman's new Global Center on Climate Change. As Newsweek now noted (March 12, 2007). “Wall Street is experiencing a climate change," with the recognition that “the way to get the green is to go green.”

In January, 2007, USCAP issued “A Call for Action," a “non-partisan effort driven by the top executives from member organizations.” The "Call” declared the "urgent need for a policy framework on climate change;" stressing that "a mandatory system is needed that sets clear, predictable, market-based requirements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” USCAP laved out a “blueprint for a mandatory economy-wide market-driven approach to climate protection,” which recommended a "cap and trade" program as its "cornerstone,” combining the setting of targets with a global carbon market for trading emission allowances and credits. Long condemned by developing countries as “carbon colonialism,” carbon trading had become the new orthodoxy. The blueprint also called for a "national program to accelerate technology, research, development, and deployment” and measures to encourage the participation of developing countries Iike China, India, and Brazil, insisting that “ultimately the solution must be global.” According to USCAP spokesperson General Electric's CEO Jeff Immelt, “these recommendations should catalyze legislative action that encourages innovation and fosters economic growth while enhancing energy security and balance of trade."

The following month yet another corporate climate organization made its appearance, this one specifically dedicated to spreading the new global warming gospel. Chaired by AI Gore of Generation Investment Management, the Alliance for Climate Protection included among its members the now familiar Theodore Roosevelt IV from Lehman Brothers and the Pew Center, former national security advisor Brent Scowcroft, Owen Kramer from Boston Provident, representatives from Environmental Defense, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the National Wildlife Federation, and three former Environmental Protection Agency Administrators. Using “innovative and far-reaching communication techniques,” Gore explained, “the Alliance for Climate Protection is undertaking an unprecedented mass persuasion exercise” – the multi-media campaign against global warming now saturating our senses. Don’t breathe.

If the corporate climate change campaign has fuelled a fevered popular preoccupation with global warming, it has also accomplished much more. Having arisen in the midst of the world-wide global justice movement, it has restored confidence in those very faiths and forces which that movement had worked so hard to expose and challenge: globe-straddling profit-maximizing corporations end their myriad agencies and agendas; the unquestioned authority of science and the corollary belief in deliverance through technology, and the beneficence of the self-regulating market with its panacea of prosperity through free trade, and its magical powers which transforms into commodities all that it touches, even life. All the glaring truths revealed by that movement about the injustices, injuries, and inequalities sowed and sustained by these powers and beliefs have now been buried, brushed aside in the apocalyptic rush to fight global warming. Explicitly likened to a war, this epic challenge requires single-minded attention and total commitment, without any such distractions. Now is not the time, nor is there any need, to question a deformed society or re-examine its underlying myths. The blame and the burden has been shifted back again to the individual, awash in primordial guilt, the familiar sinner facing punishment for his sins, his excesses, predisposed by his pious culture and primed now for discipline and sacrifice. On opening day of the 2007 baseball season, the owner of the Toronto Blue Jays stood in front of the giant jumbotron, an electronic extravaganza, encircled by a ring of dancing corporate logos and advertising, and exhorted every person in the crowd, preposterously, to go out and buy an energy-efficient light bulb. They applauded.

In his bestselling 2005 book the Weather Makers, Tim Flannery called his readers to battle in “our war on climate change." With a forward for the Canadian edition written by Mike Russill, former CEO of the energy giant Suncor and now head of World Wildlife Fund/Canada, the book well reflected the corporate campaign. Each of us "must believe that the fight is winnable in social and economic terms,” Russill insists, “and that we do not have to dramatically change the way we live," "The most important thing to realize," Flannery echoes, “is that we can all make a difference and help combat climate change at almost no cost to our lifestyle." “The transition to a carbon-free economy is eminently achievable,” he exults, "because we have all the technology we need to do so.” "One great potential pitfall on the road to climate stability," he warns, however, "is the propensity for groups to hitch their ideological wagon to the push for sustainability.” "When facing a grave emergency,” he advises, “it's best to be single-minded." The book is inspiring, rallying the reader to battle against this global threat with ingenuity, enthusiasm, and hopefulness, except for one small aside, buried in the text, that gnaws at the attentive reader: “because concern about climate change is so new, and the issue is so multi-disciplinary," Flannery notes, “there are few true experts in the field and even fewer who can articulate what the problem might mean to the general public and what we should do about it.”

The corporate campaign has done more than merely create market opportunities for mainstream popular science writers like Flannery. By constructing an exclusively Manichean contest between mean and mindless deniers, on the one hand, and enlightened global warming advocates, on the other, it has also disposed otherwise politically-astute journalists on the left to uncharacteristic credulity. Heat, George Monbiot's impassioned 2006 manifesto on the matter, is embarrassing in its funneled focus and its naive deference to the authority of science, "Curtailing climate change,” he declaims, “must become the project we put before all others. If we fail in this task, we fail in everything else." “We need a cut of the magnitude science demands,” he declares; we must adopt "the position determined by science rather than the position determined by politics," as if there was such a thing as science that was not also politics.

Monbiot pulls no punches against the “denial industry," excoriating the negative corporate campaigners for their "idiocy” and bitingly suggesting that some day soon “climate-change denial will look as stupid as Holocaust denial, or the insistence that AIDS can be cured with beetroot.” Yet he has not a word of acknowledgement much less criticism for the campaigners on the other side whose message he perhaps unwittingly peddles with such passion. And here too, oddly, a brief paragraph buried in the text, seemingly unconnected to the rest, disturbs the otherwise inspired reader. “None of this is to suggest," Monbiot notes in passing, "that the science should not be subject to constant skepticism and review, or that environmentalists should not be held to account. . . .Climate-change campaigners have no greater right to be wrong than anyone else." “If we mislead the public,” he allows, “we should expect to be exposed,” adding that “we also need to know that we are not wasting our time: there is no point in devoting your life to fighting a problem that does not exist." Here perhaps some remnants of truth seep between the managed lines, hinting yet at the opening of another space and another moment.

Historian David Noble teaches at York University in Toronto, Canada. He is the author, most recently, of Beyond the Promised Land (2005). More of his articles are posted at ACTIVIST CLIMATE GUY.

Source: http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2007/05/dgr-in-my-article-entitled-global.html

The Future of Money : New Lenses of Wealth

http://www.emergence.cc/wp-content/files/FOM_infographic_1280x1811.png

Click the above image to open a 1280px x 1811px PNG file in a new window.
2010 BY-NC-SA Emergence Collective
Research and concept by Gabriel Shalom, Venessa Miemis and Jay Cousins.
Design by Patrizia Kommerell.

After several months of research and graphic design we’re happy to present you with our infographic The Future of Money: New Lenses of Wealth. It represents the aggregation of our research on emerging marketplaces, platforms, tools, initiatives and opportunities for the new economy.

Albert Einstein : Porquê o Socialismo?

Será aconselhável para quem não é especialista em assuntos económicos e sociais exprimir opiniões sobre a questão do socialismo? Eu penso que sim, por uma série de razões.

Consideremos antes de mais a questão sob o ponto de vista do conhecimento científico. Poderá parecer que não há diferenças metodológicas essenciais entre a astronomia e a economia: os cientistas em ambos os campos tentam descobrir leis de aceitação geral para um grupo circunscrito de fenómenos de forma a tornar a interligação destes fenómenos tão claramente compreensível quanto possível. Mas, na realidade, estas diferenças metodológicas existem. A descoberta de leis gerais no campo da economia torna-se difícil pela circunstância de que os fenómenos económicos observados são frequentemente afectados por muitos factores que são muito difíceis de avaliar separadamente. Além disso, a experiência acumulada desde o início do chamado período civilizado da história humana tem sido – como é bem conhecido – largamente influenciada e limitada por causas que não são, de forma alguma, exclusivamente económicas por natureza. Por exemplo, a maior parte dos principais estados da história ficou a dever a sua existência à conquista. Os povos conquistadores estabeleceram-se, legal e economicamente, como a classe privilegiada do país conquistado. Monopolizaram as terras e nomearam um clero de entre as suas próprias fileiras. Os sacerdotes, que controlavam a educação, tornaram a divisão de classes da sociedade numa instituição permanente e criaram um sistema de valores segundo o qual as pessoas se têm guiado desde então, até grande medida de forma inconsciente, no seu comportamento social.

Mas a tradição histórica é, por assim dizer, coisa do passado; em lado nenhum ultrapassámos de facto o que Thorstein Veblen chamou de “fase predatória” do desenvolvimento humano. Os factos económicos observáveis pertencem a essa fase e mesmo as leis que podemos deduzir a partir deles não são aplicáveis a outras fases. Uma vez que o verdadeiro objectivo do socialismo é precisamente ultrapassar e ir além da fase predatória do desenvolvimento humano, a ciência económica no seu actual estado não consegue dar grandes esclarecimentos sobre a sociedade socialista do futuro.

Segundo, o socialismo é dirigido para um fim sócio-ético. A ciência, contudo, não pode criar fins e, muito menos, incuti-los nos seres humanos; quando muito, a ciência pode fornecer os meios para atingir determinados fins. Mas os próprios fins são concebidos por personalidades com ideais éticos elevados e – se estes ideais não nascerem já votados ao insucesso, mas forem vitais e vigorosos – adoptados e transportados por aqueles muitos seres humanos que, semi-inconscientemente, determinam a evolução lenta da sociedade.

Por estas razões, devemos precaver-nos para não sobrestimarmos a ciência e os métodos científicos quando se trata de problemas humanos; e não devemos assumir que os peritos são os únicos que têm o direito a expressarem-se sobre questões que afectam a organização da sociedade.

Inúmeras vozes afirmam desde há algum tempo que a sociedade humana está a passar por uma crise, que a sua estabilidade foi gravemente abalada. É característico desta situação que os indivíduos se sintam indiferentes ou mesmo hostis em relação ao grupo, pequeno ou grande, a que pertencem. Para ilustrar o meu pensamento, permitam-me que exponha aqui uma experiência pessoal. Falei recentemente com um homem inteligente e cordial sobre a ameaça de outra guerra, que, na minha opinião, colocaria em sério risco a existência da humanidade, e comentei que só uma organização supra-nacional ofereceria protecção contra esse perigo. Imediatamente o meu visitante, muito calma e friamente, disse-me: “Porque se opõe tão profundamente ao desaparecimento da raça humana?”

Tenho a certeza de que há tão pouco tempo como um século atrás ninguém teria feito uma afirmação deste tipo de forma tão leve. É a afirmação de um homem que tentou em vão atingir um equilíbrio interior e que perdeu mais ou menos a esperança de ser bem sucedido. É a expressão de uma solidão e isolamento dolorosos de que sofre tanta gente hoje em dia. Qual é a causa? Haverá uma saída?

É fácil levantar estas questões, mas é difícil responder-lhes com um certo grau de segurança. No entanto, devo tentar o melhor que posso, embora esteja consciente do facto de que os nossos sentimentos e esforços são muitas vezes contraditórios e obscuros e que não podem ser expressos em fórmulas fáceis e simples.

O homem é, simultaneamente, um ser solitário e um ser social. Enquanto ser solitário, tenta proteger a sua própria existência e a daqueles que lhe são próximos, satisfazer os seus desejos pessoais, e desenvolver as suas capacidades inatas. Enquanto ser social, procura ganhar o reconhecimento e afeição dos seus semelhantess, partilhar os seus prazeres, confortá-los nas suas tristezas e melhorar as suas condições de vida. Apenas a existência destes esforços diversos e frequentemente conflituosos respondem pelo carácter especial de um ser humano, e a sua combinação específica determina até que ponto um indivíduo pode atingir um equilíbrio interior e pode contribuir para o bem-estar da sociedade. É perfeitamente possível que a força relativa destes dois impulsos seja, no essencial, fixada por herança. Mas a personalidae que finalmente emerge é largamente formada pelo ambinte em que um indivíduo acaba por se descobrir a si próprio durante o seu desenvolvimento, pela estrutura da sociedade em que cresce, pela tradição dessa sociedade, e pelo apreço por determinados tipos de comportamento. O conceito abstracto de “sociedade” significa para o ser humano individual o conjunto das suas relações directas e indirectas com os seus contemporâneos e com todas as pessoas de gerações anteriores. O indíviduo é capaz de pensar, sentir, lutar e trabalhar sozinho, mas depende tanto da sociedade – na sua existência física, intelectual e emocional – que é impossível pensar nele, ou compreendê-lo, fora da estrutura da sociedade. É a “sociedade” que lhe fornece comida, roupa, casa, instrumentos de trabalho, língua, formas de pensamento, e a maior parte do conteúdo do pensamento; a sua vida foi tornada possível através do trabalho e da concretização dos muitos milhões passados e presentes que estão todos escondidos atrás da pequena palavra “sociedade”.

É evidente, portanto, que a dependência do indivíduo em relação à sociedade é um facto da natureza que não pode ser abolido – tal como no caso das formigas e das abelhas. No entanto, enquanto todo o processo de vida das formigas e abelhas é reduzido ao mais pequeno pormenor por instintos hereditários rígidos, o padrão social e as interrelações dos seres humanos são muito variáveis e susceptíveis de mudança. A memória, a capacidade de fazer novas combinações, o dom da comunicação oral tornaram possíveis os desenvolvimentos entre os seres humanos que não são ditados por necessidades biológicas. Estes desenvolvimentos manifestam-se nas tradições, instituições e organizações; na literatura; nas obras científicas e de engenharia; nas obras de arte. Isto explica a forma como, num determinado sentido, o homem pode influenciar a sua vida através da sua própria conduta, e como neste processo o pensamento e a vontade conscientes podem desempenhar um papel.

O homem adquire à nascença, através da hereditariedade, uma constituição biológica que devemos considerar fixa ou inalterável, incluindo os desejos naturais que são característicos da espécie humana. Além disso, durante a sua vida, adquire uma constituição cultural que adopta da sociedade através da comunicação e através de muitos outros tipos de influências. É esta constituição cultural que, com a passagem do tempo, está sujeita à mudança e que determina, em larga medida, a relação entre o indivíduo e a sociedade. A antropologia moderna ensina-nos, através da investigação comparativa das chamadas culturas primitivas, que o comportamento social dos seres humanos pode divergir grandemente, dependendo dos padrões culturais dominantes e dos tipos de organização que predominam na sociedade. É nisto que aqueles que lutam por melhorar a sorte do homem podem fundamentar as suas esperanças: os seres humanos não estão condenados, devido à sua constituição biológica, a exterminarem-se uns aos outros ou a ficarem à mercê de um destino cruel e auto-infligido.

Se nos interrogarmos sobre como deveria mudar a estrutura da sociedade e a atitude cultural do homem para tornar a vida humana o mais satisfatória possível, devemos estar permanentemente conscientes do facto de que há determinadas condições que não podemos alterar. Como mencionado anteriormente, a natureza biológica do homem, para todos os objectivos práticos, não está sujeita à mudança. Além disso, os desenvolvimentos tecnológicos e demográficos dos últimos séculos criaram condições que vieram para ficar. Em populações com fixação relativamente densa e com bens indispensáveis à sua existência continuada, é absolutamente necessário haver uma extrema divisão do trabalho e um aparelho produtivo altamente centralizado. Já lá vai o tempo – que, olhando para trás, parece ser idílico – em que os indivíduos ou grupos relativamente pequenos podiam ser completamente auto-suficientes. É apenas um pequeno exagero dizer-se que a humanidade constitui, mesmo actualmente, uma comunidade planetária de produção e consumo.

Cheguei agora ao ponto em que vou indicar sucintamente o que para mim constitui a essência da crise do nosso tempo. Diz respeito à relação do indivíduo com a sociedade. O indivíduo tornou-se mais consciente do que nunca da sua dependência relativamente à sociedade. Mas ele não sente esta dependência como um bem positivo, como um laço orgânico, como uma força protectora, mas mesmo como uma ameaça aos seus direitos naturais, ou ainda à sua existência económica. Além disso, a sua posição na sociedade é tal que os impulsos egotistas da sua composição estão constantemente a ser acentuados, enquanto os seus impulsos sociais, que são por natureza mais fracos, se deterioram progressivamente. Todos os seres humanos, seja qual for a sua posição na sociedade, sofrem este processo de deterioração. Inconscientemente prisioneiros do seu próprio egotismo, sentem-se inseguros, sós, e privados do gozo naïve, simples e não sofisticado da vida. O homem pode encontrar sentido na vida, curta e perigosa como é, apenas dedicando-se à sociedade.

A anarquia económica da sociedade capitalista como existe actualmente é, na minha opinião, a verdadeira origem do mal. Vemos perante nós uma enorme comunidade de produtores cujos membros lutam incessantemente para despojar os outros dos frutos do seu trabalho colectivo – não pela força, mas, em geral, em conformidade com as regras legalmente estabelecidas. A este respeito, é importante compreender que os meios de produção – ou seja, toda a capacidade produtiva que é necessária para produzir bens de consumo bem como bens de equipamento adicionais – podem ser legalmente, e na sua maior parte são, propriedade privada de indivíduos.

Para simplificar, no debate que se segue, chamo “trabalhadores” a todos aqueles que não partilham a posse dos meios de produção – embora isto não corresponda exactamente à utilização habitual do termo. O detentor dos meios de produção está em posição de comprar a mão-de-obra. Ao utilizar os meios de produção, o trabalhador produz novos bens que se tornam propriedade do capitalista. A questão essencial deste processo é a relação entre o que o trabalhador produz e o que recebe, ambos medidos em termos de valor real. Na medida em que o contrato de trabalho é “livre”, o que o trabalhador recebe é determinado não pelo valor real dos bens que produz, mas pelas suas necessidades mínimas e pelas exigências dos capitalistas para a mão-de-obra em relação ao número de trabalhadores que concorrem aos empregos. É importante compreender que, mesmo em teoria, o pagamento do trabalhador não é determinado pelo valor do seu produto.

O capital privado tende a concentrar-se em poucas mãos, em parte por causa da concorrência entre os capitalistas e em parte porque o desenvolvimento tecnológico e a crescente divisão do trabalho encorajam a formação de unidades de produção maiores à custa de outras mais pequenas. O resultado destes desenvolvimentos é uma oligarquia de capital privado cujo enorme poder não pode ser eficazmente controlado mesmo por uma sociedade política democraticamente organizada. Isto é verdade, uma vez que os membros dos órgãos legislativos são escolhidos pelos partidos políticos, largamente financiados ou influenciados pelos capitalistas privados que, para todos os efeitos práticos, separam o eleitorado da legislatura. A consequência é que os representantes do povo não protegem suficientemente os interesses das secções sub-privilegidas da população. Além disso, nas condições existentes, os capitalistas privados controlam inevitavelmente, directa ou indirectamente, as principais fontes de informação (imprensa, rádio, educação). É assim extremamente difícil e mesmo, na maior parte dos casos, completamente impossível, para o cidadão individual, chegar a conclusões objectivas e utilizar inteligentemente os seus direitos políticos.

Assim, a situação predominante numa economia baseada na propriedade privada do capital caracteriza-se por dois principais princípios: primeiro, os meios de produção (capital) são privados e os detentores utilizam-nos como acham adequado; segundo, o contrato de trabalho é livre. Claro que não há tal coisa como uma sociedade capitalista pura neste sentido. É de notar, em particular, que os trabalhadores, através de longas e duras lutas políticas, conseguiram garantir uma forma algo melhorada do “contrato de trabalho livre” para determinadas categorias de trabalhadores. Mas tomada no seu conjunto, a economia actual não difere muito do capitalismo “puro”.

A produção é feita para o lucro e não para o uso. Não há nenhuma disposição em que todos os que possam e queiram trabalhar estejam sempre em posição de encontrar emprego; existe quase sempre um “exército de desempregados. O trabalhador está constantemente com medo de perder o seu emprego. Uma vez que os desempregados e os trabalhadores mal pagos não fornecem um mercado rentável, a produção de bens de consumo é restrita e tem como consequência a miséria. O progresso tecnológico resulta frequentemente em mais desemprego e não no alívio do fardo da carga de trabalho para todos. O motivo lucro, em conjunto com a concorrência entre capitalistas, é responsável por uma instabilidade na acumulação e utilização do capital que conduz a depressões cada vez mais graves. A concorrência sem limites conduz a um enorme desperdício do trabalho e a esse enfraquecimento consciência social dos indivíduos que mencionei anteriormente.

Considero este enfraquecimento dos indivíduos como o pior mal do capitalismo. Todo o nosso sistema educativo sofre deste mal. É incutida uma atitude exageradamente competitiva no aluno, que é formado para venerar o sucesso de aquisição como preparação para a sua futura carreira.

Estou convencido que só há uma forma de eliminar estes sérios males, nomeadamente através da constituição de uma economia socialista, acompanhada por um sistema educativo orientado para objectivos sociais. Nesta economia, os meios de produção são detidos pela própria sociedade e são utilizados de forma planeada. Uma economia planeada, que adeque a produção às necessidades da comunidade, distribuiria o trabalho a ser feito entre aqueles que podem trabalhar e garantiria o sustento a todos os homens, mulheres e crianças. A educação do indivíduo, além de promover as suas próprias capacidades inatas, tentaria desenvolver nele um sentido de responsabilidade pelo seu semelhante em vez da glorificação do poder e do sucesso na nossa actual sociedade.

No entanto, é necessário lembrar que uma economia planeada não é ainda o socialismo. Uma tal economia planeada pode ser acompanhada pela completa opressão do indivíduo. A concretização do socialismo exige a solução de problemas socio-políticos extremamente difíceis; como é possível, perante a centralização de longo alcance do poder económico e político, evitar a burocracia de se tornar toda-poderosa e vangloriosa? Como podem ser protegidos os direitos do indivíduo e com isso assegurar-se um contrapeso democrático ao poder da burocracia?

A clareza sobre os objectivos e problemas do socialismo é da maior importância na nossa época de transição. Visto que, nas actuais circunstâncias, a discussão livre e sem entraves destes problemas surge sob um tabu poderoso, considero a fundação desta revista como um serviço público importante.

- x -
Einstein escreveu este trabalho especialmente para o lançamento da Monthly Review , cujo primeiro número foi publicado em Maio de 1949. Tradução de Anabela Magalhães.

O original deste artigo encontra-se em http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einst.htm .

Este artigo encontra-se em http://resistir.info

What's Class Got to Do with It? American Society in the Twenty-first Century

http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/?GCOI=80140100440280

 By Michael Zweig

"Whether in regard to the economy or issues of war and peace, class is central to our everyday lives. Yet class has not been as visible as race or gender, not nearly as much a part of our conversations and sense of ourselves as these and other 'identities.' We are of course all individuals, but our individuality and personal life chances are shaped—limited or enhanced—by the economic and social class in which we have grown up and in which we exist as adults."—from the Introduction

The contributors to this volume argue that class identity in the United States has been hidden for too long. Their essays, published here for the first time, cover the relation of class to race and gender, to globalization and public policy, and to the lives of young adults. They describe how class, defined in terms of economic and political power rather than income, is in fact central to Americans' everyday lives. What's Class Got to Do with It? is an important resource for the new field of working class studies.

Ralph Nader : The Seventeen Traditions

http://www.harpercollins.com/books/Seventeen-Traditions-Ralph-Nader/?isbn=9780061238277

The activist, humanitarian, and former presidential candidate named one of the 100 most influential figures in American history by The Atlantic—one of only three living Americans so honored—Ralph Nader, looks back at his small-town Connecticut childhood and the traditions and values that shaped his progressive worldview. At once eye-opening, thought-provoking, and surprisingly fresh and moving, Nader’s The Seventeen Traditions is a celebration of uniquely American ethics certain to appeal to fans of Mitch Albom, Tim Russert, and Anna Quindlen—an unexpected and most welcome gift from this fearlessly committed reformer and outspoken critic of corruption in government and society. In a time of widespread national dissatisfaction and disillusionment that has given rise to new dissent characterized by the Occupy Wall Street movement, the liberal icon shows us how every American can learn from The Seventeen Traditions and, by embracing them, help bring about meaningful and necessary change.

Book Description

My boyhood in a small town in Connecticut was shaped by my family, my friends, our neighbors, my chores and hobbies, the town's culture and environment, its schools, libraries, factories, and businesses, their workers, and by storms that came from nowhere to disrupt everything. . . . Yet childhood in any family is a mysterious experience. . . . What shapes the mind, the personality, the character?

So begins this unexpected and extraordinary book by Ralph Nader. Known for his lifetime of selfless activism, Nader now looks back to the earliest days of his own life, to his serene and enriching childhood in bucolic Winsted, Connecticut. From listening to learning, from patriotism to argument, from work to simple enjoyment, Nader revisits seventeen key traditions he absorbed from his parents, his siblings, and the people in his community, and draws from them inspiring lessons for today's society. Warmly human, rich with sensory memories and lasting wisdom, it offers a kind of modern-day parable of how we grow from children into responsible adults—a reminder of a time when nature and community were central to the way we all learned and lived.

Ralph Nader was recently named by the Atlantic as one of the 100 most influential figures in American history, one of only four living people to be so honored. The son of immigrants from Lebanon, he has launched two major presidential campaigns and founded or organized more than one hundred civic organizations. His groups have made an impact on tax reform, atomic power regulation, the tobacco industry, clean air and water, food safety, access to health care, civil rights, congressional ethics, and much more.

Activists beyond Borders : Advocacy Networks in International Politics

http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/?GCOI=80140100369430

In Activists beyond Borders, Margaret E. Keck and Kathryn Sikkink examine a type of pressure group that has been largely ignored by political analysts: networks of activists that coalesce and operate across national frontiers. Their targets may be international organizations or the policies of particular states. Historical examples of such transborder alliances include anti-slavery and woman suffrage campaigns. In the past two decades, transnational activism has had a significant impact in human rights, especially in Latin America, and advocacy networks have strongly influenced environmental politics as well. The authors also examine the emergence of an international campaign around violence against women.

Beyond the Boycott : Labor Rights, Human Rights, and Transnational Activism

https://www.russellsage.org/publications/beyond-boycott

As the world economy becomes increasingly integrated, companies can shift production to wherever wages are lowest and unions weakest. How can workers defend their rights in an era of mobile capital? With national governments forced to compete for foreign investment by rolling back legal protections for workers, fair trade advocates are enlisting consumers to put market pressure on companies to treat their workers fairly. In Beyond the Boycott, sociologist Gay Seidman asks whether this non-governmental approach can reverse the “race to the bottom” in global labor standards.

Beyond the Boycott examines three campaigns in which activists successfully used the threat of a consumer boycott to pressure companies to accept voluntary codes of conduct and independent monitoring of work sites. The voluntary Sullivan Code required American corporations operating in apartheid-era South Africa to improve treatment of their workers; in India, the Rugmark inspection team provides ‘social labels’ for handknotted carpets made without child labor; and in Guatemala, COVERCO monitors conditions in factories producing clothing under contract for major American brands. Seidman compares these cases to explore the ingredients of successful campaigns, as well as the inherent limitations facing voluntary monitoring schemes. Despite activists’ emphasis on educating individual consumers to support ethical companies, Seidman finds that, in practice, they have been most successful when they mobilized institutions—such as universities, churches, and shareholder organizations. Moreover, although activists tend to dismiss states’ capabilities, all three cases involved governmental threats of trade sanctions against companies and countries with poor labor records. Finally, Seidman points to an intractable difficulty of independent workplace monitoring: since consumers rarely distinguish between monitoring schemes and labels, companies can hand pick monitoring organizations, selecting those with the lowest standards for working conditions and the least aggressive inspections. Transnational consumer movements can increase the bargaining power of the global workforce, Seidman argues, but they cannot replace national governments or local campaigns to expand the meaning of citizenship.

As trade and capital move across borders in growing volume and with greater speed, civil society and human rights movements are also becoming more global. Highly original and thought-provoking, Beyond the Boycott vividly depicts the contemporary movement to humanize globalization—its present and its possible future.

GAY W. SEIDMAN is professor of sociology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.

A Volume in the American Sociological Association’s Rose Series in Sociology