Into the Green – Black Flag (1989)

From ‘Black Flag: For Anarchist Resistance‘, Nov-Dec 89, London, UK

Concern for the environment, ecology, the conservation of natural resources is a prime matter for working people, who have to suffer the worst excesses of exploitation of natural and human resources, whether industrially or on the land. The worst excesses have been caused, and still are being caused, in the pursuit of profits but such exploitation has reached its peak and if it continues, everything will dry up including the ability to make profits.

Hence the dilemma of the upper and middle classes: if they go on exploiting natural and animal products, these will cease to be available. Collectively they realise the time has come for limiting the amount of exploitation but individually there is still the possibility for profit which defy good intentions except among those already satiated.

An effective collective movement concentrating on green issues can only be one parallel, or indeed identical, with one concentrating on wage increases and a higher standard of living. For workers to increase the immediate quality of life they need better housing, better surroundings, more availability of goods, less pollution, more cash, which they need to fight for collectively. Direct action to preserve the environment, or prevent people sleeping on the streets, or not be imperilled at work, or increase the standard of living are not ‘reformist’ (reformism is thinking that one or all of any of these things are sufficient): but they can only be achieved if linked to a social revolution aimed at control of our own destinies.

Political solutions?

For the middle class this is too daunting a prospect: they prefer to seek ways of curbing the excesses of capitalism which do not interfere with their privileged position. They say, for instance, (rightly) don’t build more houses on the green belt round the cities — which is dandy for those living in a comfortable house in a leafy suburb or a listed country mansion which they have no intention of sharing, but less attractive to slum dwellers.

Therefore (according to political expediency) they dream up political solutions — e.g. reducing the number of houses, reducing the amount of lead in cars, or the number of cars (not that they will do without one themselves), reducing the amount of pollution or food additives which provide the profits that makes the middle class tick, or even reducing the number of people (bet your life, not them). They will do anything for the environment except get off the back of the people they’re living on. It is, of course, only partly the excesses of pollution and the interest in them that have made the parties ecology-conscious: the other factor is entirely political. The formation of a marginal Green Party is irresistible to a fringe of voters as long as they don’t know too much about it or are not asked to do anything. In British politics the party joined the fun-run candidates for parliament and — as nobody votes FOR a main party any more but only against the other — they looked a bit credible as a third party as the Liberal and Democratic alliance crumbled to pieces.

They picked up a few votes and so the whole of the politicos (not to mention some industrialists and finance companies with their green schemes) are jumping on the horse-powered bandwaggon.

But voting green, getting parties to adopt green policies, or adopting the word green to a middle class programme isn’t doing anything about ecology, any more than green capitalist concerns. Protection against exploitation of the environment needs direct action, but when anyone takes direct action for ecology, the political greens disown it, yet it stimulates those who vote for them, thinking someone is doing something about the problem and the least they can do is vote. When will they ever learn?

N.B. An example of cashing-in on the Green issue is the ownership of the newly published Green Magazine: the proprietors are Northern & Shell who built up their publishing assets selling soft porn magazines like Penthouse and Forum. They obviously see little difference between the consumerist boom in ecological matters and seedy interests in the purveyance of sexual titillation: both are a market to exploit.