New Right, fascism and globalisation

Macdonald Stainsby mstainsby at
Thu Aug 5 03:38:39 MDT 1999


>Now the substantive point/s:
>One of the problems with your conception of indigenous and ecological
>struggles is that you seem to find them inherently progressive.  I cannot
>see that this is the case at all.
>Ecological politics tend to defend the status quo, in particular in
>alibi-ing the inability of capitalism to deliver *more* and *better*.
>During the early 1970s phoney 'oil shortage', the Greens nicely gave the
>oil cartles a hand by claiming that the 'shortage' was genuine and that the
>world was running out of oil.  Of course, the shortage was actually one
>contrived by the 'seven sisters' who controlled the global oil industry and
>who wished to push up prices.  Known oil reserves now are larger than what
>they were in 1973, even though we have used a huge amount of oil in the

Non-class based greens are highly suceptible to such garbage- because they
still tend to trust the general framework for debate thay are handed. I am
active in the Environmental community here. It simply will not suffice to
label all greenies the same- they sure as hell are not.
    There is a long tradition of sectarianism in the Green movement just as
there is in the Marxist movement. There is a HUGE difference between Earth
First! and the World Wildlife Fund (who must be destroyed for their
panderings to concepts of tinkering with a failed system). I can provide my
synthesis of the differences in Green groups/ideology if people would like
so. It was environmentalism that brought me to Marx in the first place.

    The question placed is simple: Capitalism provides no braking mechanism;
if capital cannot grow and expand, it will perish. Marxist ABC. When we
discover that the world actually has limits that we must come to terms with,
we realise that socialism is the only economical answer, short of human
annihilation. An anti-communist group exists that is call the "Voluntary
Human Extinction Movement", precisely because they have a non-materialist
concept of ecology, believing that "human nature" will destroy the planet,
therefore we must commit mass suicide to abate the disaster. Obviously, this
is only attackable with a class-based analysis. Jim Craven and I, among
others, wholly concur on the subject of people like the scumbag Paul Watson.
But, I must ask, where is the benefit in socialising the means of production
on a dead planet?
More importantly- If this is a big trick by the Bourgeoisie, why would they
come up with a propaganda blitz that says that the system itself is
ultrimately untenable? The problem lies with the concept of "constructing
Socialism", initiated under Lenin, carried out under Stalin, ad repeated by
all Reds since- Trot or not. We were trained under a Russian model that
promoted growth as a be all end all, and this was neccessary for the USSR.
But we must discard it- Marxism, nay socialism in general, are the only way
to satisfy mother nature and humanity. As a local Indian Marxist put it so
succinctly:  :Even Mother Nature is now rising up against capitalism now!"
No keener words have I ever heard on the subject.


To criticize the people's shortcomings is neccessary, as we have already
said, but in so doing we must truly take the stand of the people and speak
out of whole hearted eagerness to protect and educate them. To treat
comrades like enemies is to go over to the stand of the enemy.

Mao Tse-tung, "Talks at the Yenan forum on literature and art".

Get Your Private, Free Email at

More information about the Marxism mailing list