The Environment is a Class Issue

From ‘Reality Now’, Winter 1988 – Spring 1989, Toronto

Readers of Reality Now are familiar with the extent of environmental destruction our society has brought about. The fault of this devastation lies partially in our own consumerist attitudes, but it rests more squarely on the shoulders of those with power and money who direct and control the orgies of destruction now raping our earth. Behind this situation lies the basic fact of life of our society: under capitalism (in all its forms — including state socialism) we are under the thumbs of giant corporations and their front groups, governments, and it will take one hell of a struggle to get out.

That struggle is one which cannot be waged by environmentalists alone. The environmental movement, though admirable in ideals, lacks the basic social force needed to create the necessary changes: the activity of workers within industry and the people in the community. There are several reasons why the environmental struggle is isolated. First of all, the environmental movement aims its campaigns at its own: middle class people with money and time to care about more than their next paycheck and the rent. Poorer people don’t have the same luxury. Secondly, the environmental movement, including some “green anarchists” often rejects urban struggles such as those of workers and urban communities on the grounds that their work, workplaces and neighbourhoods are ecologically unsound, and that the earth is more important to protect than people. Partly as a result of this, this movement tends to lack any solid concept of how to get from here to the envisioned ecologically-balanced and de-centralized society. Environmentalists have a lot of very important ideas but nowhere to go with them.

Environmentalists, especially the more liberal amongst us, also often lack a clear understanding of the global structure of capitalism. For instance, while the many campaigns to save selected areas of threatened wilderness are admirable, when the corporations take a loss in one area, they simply kill another less controversial one. All the wonderful regulations on chemicals used in North America may save this part of the globe from that kind of damage, but the result is that the banned chemicals are merely sent down to the “third world” where they are used extensively at the expense of both the people and the environment. But no matter where in the world, it is always the poor or powerless who suffer the effect of corporate destruction of the earth. To put it simply, the earth won’t be saved by single-issue environmental politics, but by a complete revolutionary change which brings down capitalism.

The force necessary to bring this about, as has been said earlier, is that of both workers and the communities organizing. The people who have long been active in these struggles have been anarcho-syndicalists, often seen as workerist. But there has been a noticeable change in the character of anarcho-syndicalism in recent years which we hope will bring the eco-anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists together more to fight our common enemies.

Anarcho-syndicalism needs these changes. It has had in the past a tendency towards needless bureaucracy and has been too focused on one area of struggle (the workplace) despite sharing the belief that struggles have to be expanded to the communities. It has a need to adapt to new economic/class conditions of the 1980’s which may take the power out of workers organizations. It may indeed have to change its entire nature of organization to be effective today and in the future. And it needs to adopt an ecological consciousness which goes beyond merely believing in less pollution. Technology itself has to be challenged. We welcome anarcho-syndicalists who have been willing to challenge these things, and ecology-minded anarchists who recognize that the urban struggles of workers, the poor, and urban communities is where our strength to initiate changes lies.

Our enemies are definitely common; for instance, a corporation like McDonalds, responsible for major ecological damage, also pays its workers the lowest possible wages, breaks unions, and practically enslaves the young people who work for it. The same could be said for most multinationals. But the thing which will break the back of McDonalds is not a few broken windows (though it can’t hurt to try!) but the organization of its workers. It cannot function without profits. which it makes from low wages. Higher wages would make it inoperable. The self-organization of workers within industry is necessary to bring about the needed social changes. It is a way to take away the power of those directing industry who would destroy our earth.

But what stands between workers and environmentalists in most people’s minds is the age-old controversy of jobs vs. conservation. Found especially in logging and mining fights, the corporation successfully creates this split by counting off lost jobs if the threatened area is conserved. Most of the jobs will, in a few years, be lost anyways, as forestry etc. have been made into non-renewable industries. However, disregarding that, it’s been seen that the timber stripped from BC forests tends to be shipped off elsewhere for finishing anyways — a job that could be done here but is cheaper for the corporation when done elsewhere. Hence jobs are still lost, mills still close, yet the fault clearly lies with the corporation’s profit motive, not the effects of conservation.

Also, while more and more trees are chopped down, recycling efforts are minimal compared to their potential. They’re ignored because they’re labour intensive. It takes more workers to sort, ship and reprocess waste-paper than to shove a log through a chipper. Recycling makes more jobs, not more profits. Jobs which could be created yet are neglected by a corporation which cries out “jobs! jobs!” when its interests are threatened. The real fight, then, is one between capital and workers, not environmentalists and workers. Unfortunately, both groups fall prey to this red herring. Capital doesn’t have their best interests at heart.

In the long term, when speaking of worker control of industry, not only would a fundamental de-industrialization inevitably occur due to decentralization, but the whole nature of industry would necessarily change due to local control of projects and the destruction of multinational corporations. A community which has control over the industries in its area, and which will feel the full environmental effects of its own decisions, will by necessity abandon hazardous practices in favour of ecologically sound alternatives. It is naturally in their interests to do so. And without the profit motive to inspire them, socially useless and wasteful industries would cease to exist… only those activities which are useful to the community would be worth our labour.

If an ecologically balanced world is our end, then it demands our participation in the class struggle. Through our common organization on every level in the community, we can fight back effectively, but it demands our attention to everyday struggles and our solidarity with each other. Ecologists and workers share more than a common enemy, they share a common goal.

Reality Now