Against Ecology – Pierleone Porcu (1988)

From ‘Insurrection: Anarchist Magazine’, Issue 5, 1988

Against the “alternative” solutions proposed by the ecologists, we see the only way to approach the problem of ecological devastation is within the context of the subversion of all the relations and values on which the capitalist system is based

Ecology has become the most relevant social phenomenon at mass level in countries in the postindustrial phase. It is also becoming the affair of the century for capital and the State.

We must therefore look at what the ecological struggle means both to those involved in it, and to the State and capital who are working to preserve their interests.

The ecological struggle has aimed until now at finding “alternative” solutions capable of redressing the balance of man’s destructive relationship with nature and breaking with the logic of technological development based on sackage and devastation.

Although the aspirations of the ecologists are right, none of them question the power structure but on the contrary are turning out to be useful to it, enabling it to present itself in a more critical and attractive guise. When separated from the social question, ecology becomes a great occasion for Power to build grandiose projects of social integration, exploiting the consensus of the proletarian masses towards the ecologists.

The ecological humanitarianism of those who protest against the crazed wasting of resources while millions die of hunger, does not touch capital’s postindustrial interests an inch. It becomes an incentive for them in fact to improve their own productive and organisational levels that often lag behind overall levels of industrial development.

Has capital become ecological then? Contrary to the ecologists, we think the answer is yes. At the present time capital is looking for new technologies to overcome the imbalance that still exists in processing raw materials. This is happening through an increased rationalisation of its instruments of production. That undoubtedly puts a brake on the ecological destruction of the planet, improving the exploitation of resources thanks also to recycling the mountains of refuse that lie unused. The more technologically advanced countries are well ahead in that direction, going towards the creation of a world market linked to soft technology and ecology that represent new frontiers for capital.

In the advanced industrial countries it is the State itself which launches the great campaigns on ecological problems, as it can draw great advantage from the industries which produce instruments for reducing pollution. Another reason is that in this way the State can also guarantee a wider control over society, through the involvement of the great masses who seem to have made this their only form of social involvement.

The development of an ecologically sound technology becomes a way for the more advanced States to increase the dependence of the economically weaker countries on them and affect their future development. Hence the need for States and international capital to invest millions of dollars in financing ecological programmes.

Ecological campaigns are creating a true ecological culture, even in the schools where there are now specific courses on the subject. It is the more progressive and sensitive politicians who support this project, never missing a chance to underline their engagement and to point out the hard parliamentary battles they are waging against the conservatives.

The environmentalists are giving a hand to capital and the State. The Greens, as well as their ritual protesting, make constructive proposals based on “alternative solutions”. In this way they play the role of a “loyal opposition” to the system, not realising that this makes them elements which are involved in its advancement. Their action serves domination. Although they present themselves as having high social values, they always tend towards the political recuperation of fringes of the anti-institutional opposition.

The Greens want to give domination a human face, so they think it is right for their projects to be financed by the State or by the very structures that are destroying nature. Now they are getting into local bodies, with the effect that the State is now able to extend its dominion to even the most peripheral areas.

Who can have any interest in a prospect aimed at making capital abandon its insane development towards so-called hard technology, substituting “soft” ecological ones, if not those who want to conserve the present social system?

We are not interested in capital’s development, be it hard or soft. We are only interested in destroying capital as a system, along with the State apparatus all over the world that supports it.

The ecologist spectacle wants us to participate in this system of death, trying to nail us to an ongoing situation of survival. We are submitting to it with supine resignation when we promote ecological battles against the imminent death of the planet.

It is necessary to do more. The violent rupture with constituted order is a vital necessity for us. In this sense we propose putting the ecological struggle on an insurrectional footing.

Ecology is important only if it is understood within a radical process of transformation, as this is the only way it can be used to speed up the end of this society of domination.

We therefore have two roads: the first starts from the destruction of the relationship with power in order to reach an egalitarian, free, ecological society; the second limits itself to saving the planet from complete destruction. If we choose the first road we will always find comrades who support our initiatives. If we choose the second, these comrades will see us as their enemies.

We too are for ecology and against all kinds of pollution, but we see the ecological struggle within the context requiring the total subversion of all the relations and values on which the system is based.

Pierleone Porcu