http://monthlyreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/PB01222.jpgWe need to find ways to work with the labor movement around the whole concept of a "just transition." That concept has come out of the international labor movement--that we realize the change in the economy is going to result in lost jobs, and nobody should suffer as a result. There should be jobs or full pay, free retraining and so on.But those things won't be won from the outside. They won't be won at all unless the unions themselves build a movement to fight for them.

More... (http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2015/angus021215.html)

This is correct:


The way things are going now, keeping the global temperature increase to two degrees is very unlikely. Without radical economic change, it's more likely that we're going to have a three-degree increase by the end of the century, and maybe four. That, as we know, would be catastrophic. There would be substantial parts of the earth that would be very difficult, even impossible, to survive in. So we're in a dangerous circumstances

As is this


To save the planet, we have to stop some significant things. Two really good immediate steps would be shut down the armed forces and stop all advertising. Both of those are trillion-dollar-a-year items. Any government that was really committed to stopping environmental destruction would take those steps. You could call that de-growth--stop doing the things that are causing the damage.

On the other hand, we are never going to build a global movement unless we recognize and accept that two-thirds of the world actually needs "more stuff." For example, we need to make access to electricity in every home a basic right. That's going to require building a lot of solar panels and other equipment. There is no way around that. So focusing on reducing or stopping growth in the abstract doesn't get us very far.

can we argue with this?


Marx famously said that people make their own history, but not under conditions of their choosing. This is a concrete example--changing the world in the context of impending environmental disaster. Marx didn't expect that, but that's our reality. The way we build socialism, the kind of socialism we will be able to build, will be fundamentally shaped by the state of the planet we must build it on.

The article goes on to illustrate the various challenges and difficultiesin developing 'the movement', speaks much of the need to compromise in the cobbling together a coalition. Situationally this can be very important but I do wonder why it is the socialists who must do the compromising, will our 'partners' oblige equally or is this Minsk IV?

More importantly, why should there be a separate movement? Is a livable planet with our natural heritage not part of what is benefical to humanity? And is capitalism not the perpetrator, directly or indirectly, of near all of which threatens our environment, besides the horror it inflicts upon humanity directly? This is indeed our balliwick.

Communists should lead because capitalism is our mortal enemy and we know best how to deal with it. We will not be beguiled by some '3rd way' bullshit. And we will not sacrifice human need for some abstract goals or the desires of the bourgeiose. The environment is an important bolt in our quiver. And it is a responsibility which we should shoulder as part of building a socialist future. As our environmental situation continues to deteriorate our stance will signal our seriousness to the people at large.