đŸ’Ÿ Archived View for library.inu.red â€ș file â€ș workers-solidarity-federation-the-environment.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 14:55:27. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

View Raw

More Information

âžĄïž Next capture (2024-07-09)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: The Environment
Author: Workers’ Solidarity Federation
Language: en
Topics: ecology, economics, environment, organization, racism, South Africa, syndicalist, technology
Source: Retrieved on January 1, 2005 from http://www.cat.org.au

Workers’ Solidarity Federation

The Environment

Anarchism ... has always fostered an intense interest in the proper

ecological management of the Earth, and its history, theory and practice

contains valuble clues and suggestions as to how we might overcome the

ecological crisis that presently confronts the human species.

Graham Purchase, Anarchism and Ecology: the Historical Relationship of

Anarchism to Ecological Thought, Black Swan, 1992.

1. General Introduction

1. The Earth is facing an environmental crisis on a scale unprecedented

in human history. This environmental crisis is already responsible for

high levels of human suffering. If the crisis continues to develop at

its current rate, the ultimate result wil be the extinction of human

life on the planet.

2. We call for action to end the environmental crisis because of the

threat it poses to humankind, and because we recognize that nature and

the environment have value in their own terms. Although we hold human

life above all other life on the planet, we do not think that humans

have the right destroy animals, plants and eco-systems that do not

threaten its survival.

3. The main environmental problems include:

3.1. Air pollution: destroys the ozone layer that filters out dangerous

rays from the sun; creates a general increase in planetary temperatures

(the greenhouse effect) that will severely disrupt weather patterns;

turns rain water into acid that destroys plant and animal life; causes

respiratory and other diseases amongst humans.

3.2. Solid waste: the sea and the land environments are poisoned by the

dumping of dangerous industrial wastes (such as mercury and nuclear

waste); the use of materials that nature cannot break down in packaging

and in other products, particularly disposable products, have turned

many parts of the world into large rubbish dumps as well as wasting

resources; poisons and injures people.

3.3. Soil erosion: this takes place in both the First and the Third

World, and is the result of factors such the (mis-)use of chemical

fertilizers, dangerous pesticides etc, as well as inappropriate land

use, land overuse, and the felling of trees. For these reasons, soil is

eroded at a rate faster than that at which it is being produced;

contributes to rural poverty [1].

3.4. Extinction: plants and animals are being made extinct at a faster

rate than any time since the dinosaurs died out, 60 million years ago;

results in the loss of many species, and undermines the ecosphere on

which all life depends.

4. All of these environmental problems exist on a serious scale in South

Africa [2].

4.1. For example, in 1990 coal burning power stations and factories in

the Eastern Transvaal and Vaal Triangle pumped acid rain-producing

chemicals into the atmosphere at levels twice those of (ex-)East

Germany, which is the country with the world’s most serious acid rain

problem [3].The area affected includes half of South Africa’s

agricultural land and forest resources, whilst the rivers that drain out

of it provide a quarter of the country’s surface water.

4.2. As for soil erosion, this takes place in South Africa at a very

high rate: on average, at least 20 tons of topsoil are lost for every

ton of grain produced. Rates are higher in many areas.

5. The environmental crisis has contributed strongly to the emergence of

a large world-wide environmental movement. This movement first emerged

in the nineteenth-century but has become especially prominent since the

1960s.

2. Explaining the Environmental Crisis

6. We reject the argument that economic development and economic growth

always leads to the destruction of the environment. The implication of

this type of argument is either that the environmental crisis is

unavoidable and that we should just “grin and bear it”, or that the

world’s economy must be drastically shrunk, and industry replaced with

small-scale craft and agricultural production.

6.1. By “development” we mean a sustained structural shift in the

economy from the primary sector (farming, mining) towards manufacturing

and the service sector; by “economic growth” we mean the expansion of

per capita output in a given economy. [4].

6.2. There is nothing inherently environmentally destructive about

modern industrial technologies [5]. Many dangerous technologies and

substances can be replaced. For example, petrochemical based plastics,

which are not biodegradable, can be replaced by starch-based plastics

(which safely disintegrate if left outside in a couple of weeks),

palm-oil can be used to replace diesel etc.

6.3. There is nothing wrong in and of itself with development and

economic growth [6]. The point is that these processes can and must take

place on environmentally-sensitive and sustainable lines. Dangerous

technologies must be replaced with sustainable ones (eg). nuclear energy

with solar energy. Wasteful practices must be ended (eg). the use of

disposable containers as opposed to recyclable ones like glass bottles;

the production of more of a good than can be used.

6.4. There is still a need for (environmentally-sustainable) development

and economic growth in order to deal with poverty and under-development

(eg). need for a massive program of house-building.

6.5. In addition, industrial technology holds a number of advantages

over small-scale craft production [7]. Industry can produce many types

of goods on a larger scale and at a faster rate than craft production,

and can thus not only increase the level of economic growth, but also

help shorten the working day, and free people from many unpleasant jobs.

7. We reject the argument that the First World is, as a whole,

responsible for the environmental crisis [8]. By the “First World” we

mean the advanced industrial capitalist countries of West Europe, the

United States of America, Canada, Australia, and Japan. According to

this kind of argument living standards in the First World are

excessively high, with the “average” person not only consuming resources

at a much higher rate than people elsewhere, but also owning far more

things than are remotely neccesary for a comfortable existence. The

implication of this argument is that there must be a drastic reduction

in First World living standards, and that the rest of the world can

never hope to raise their living standards to the levels supposedly

enjoyed by the “rich countries.”

7.1. The majority of people in the First World — the working class — are

not a rich elite living it up at the expense of the planet and the Third

World (Africa, Asia, South America, and arguably, parts of the

ex-Eastern bloc) [9].There are massive levels of inequality in wealth

and power in the First World.

7.2. For example, in the United Kingdom (UK) (Britain and Northern

Ireland) at the start of the 1980s, the top 10% of the population

received 23.9% of total income while the bottom 10% received only 2.5%.

The top 10% of the population also owned four fifths of all personal

wealth, and 98% of all privately held company shares and stocks. The top

1% itself owned 80% of all stocks and shares. Meanwhile the bottom 80%

of the population owned just 10% of the personal wealth, mostly in the

form of owning the ho use they live in. These economic inequalities

correspond to material deprivation and hardship. A study published in

1979 found that about 32% of the population of the UK (15–17.5 million

out of a population of 55.5 million) was living in or near poverty. A

1990 United Nations survey of child health in the UK showed that 25% of

children were malnourished to the extent that their growth was stunted

[10].

7.3. From these figures it should be clear that the majority of the

working class in the First World is not enjoying “very high per capita

material living standards”. The high levels of consumption that exist in

the First World can only be explained by reference to the excessively

high living standards of the ruling classes as well as parts of the

middle class. In the Third World, too, there is a small ruling elite

whose jet-set lifestyle contributes directly to environmental

degradation.

7.4. In fact, given that most industry (and hence pollution) is located

in the First World, the working class of these countries is among the

primary victims of environmental degradation.

7.5. Thus, the majority of people in the First World do not need

“de-development” and a scaling down of living standards, but increased

(egalitarian and environmentally-sensitive) growth to improve their

living standards.

3. Capitalism and the State: At the Root of the Environmental Crisis

8. The real blame for the environmental crisis must be laid at the door

of capitalism and the State, and the society which these forces have

created.

9. Capitalism is an enormously wasteful system of production, which is

geared towards competition in the market, and to making profits. Under

capitalism, the needs of the working class are not met, a false sort of

“over-production” takes place, and pollution is endemic [11]. See

position paper on class struggle for discussion of capitalism.

9.1. Huge amounts of goods are built to break as soon as possible in

order to keep sales up (built-in obsolescence).

9.2. A large number of useless or inefficient goods are promoted and

sold by means of high pressure advertising (eg) private cars in place of

large-scale public transport.

9.3. We must not make the mistake of assuming that all goods produced

under capitalism are actually consumed by ordinary people. Often the

bosses produce more of a given good than can be sold on the market, and

this can lead to a price collapse and a recession. The bosses’ solution

is to destroy or stockpile the “extra” goods, rather than distribute

them to those who need them (which would cut into profits) (eg). In 1991

there were 200 million tons of grain worldwide which were hoarded to

preserve price levels. Three million tons could have eliminated famine

in Africa that year.

9.4. It also costs money and cuts into potential profits to install

safety equipment and monitor the use of dangerous materials. It is more

profitable for the capitalists to shift these costs (sometimes called

“externalities”) onto the consumer in the for m of pollution. 9.5. We

noted above that there are many environmentally-friendly technologies

that can replace environmentally destructive ones. Many of these have

been bought up and suppressed by vested capitalist interests that do not

want technological changes that will threaten their profits [12].

10. The State, like capitalism, is a major cause of environmental

degradation. See position paper on class struggle for discussion of the

state.

10.1. The State is a structure created to allow the minority of bosses

and rulers to dominate and exploit the masses of the working class (and

working peasants). The State will not willingly enforce strong

environmental protection laws against the bosses because it does not

want to cut into the profits of the bosses and into its own tax revenue.

10.2. In addition, the rulers of the State are afraid that strong

environmental laws will chase away investors (eg). in 1992, capitalists

in Holland were able to block a proposed tax on carbon pollution by

threatening to relocate in other countries [13].

10.3. The State directly contributes to the environmental crisis in its

drive to strengthen its military power against the working class and

against rival States. War and the mobilization of resources for war has

devastating effects on the environment [14].

10.4. Massive amounts of resources that could be used to introduce

environmentally-friendly technologies, promote soil conservation and the

like are spent on military projects: worldwide military expenditure

amounts to $900 billion a year.

10.5. Military technology such as atomic weapons are more than capable

of destroying all life on the planet. Beyond this, many technologies

developed in wars have been adapted to industry, resulting in very

dangerous products (nuclear weapons — > nuclear reactors; nerve gases

— > pesticides).

10.6. Both war and environmental destruction are based on a disrespect

for life and the values of domination, conquest and control (over people

or nature).

10.7. Another example of the links between the State’s war against

people and its war against the environment: evidence has emerged that

the South African Defense Force (SADF) was involved in the smuggling of

ivory and rhino horns to fund Unita and Renamo rightwing armed

operations in Angola and Mozambique [15]. In this case, rare animals

were slaughtered to prop up reactionary movements aligned to the

Apartheid state.

11. Capitalism and the State also contribute to environmental

degradation by generating massive inequality.

11.1. One reason for the environmental crisis is clearly the excessively

high consumption of the ruling classes of the First World and the Third

World. Capitalism and the State always result in the accumulation of

wealth and power in the hands of a few.

11.2. Poverty also leads directly to environmental destruction (eg). the

homelands system in South Africa. The homelands only make up 13% of the

country’s surface territory but are home to more than 10 million people,

thus creating severe pressure on the land: the land is overgrazed,

scarred by dongas, and natural woodlands are denuded [16].

11.3. Poverty is the direct result of the system of capitalism and the

State (eg). the capitalists supported the homelands system because they

wanted farming in the homelands to subsidize cheap migrant labor by

supporting the workers’ families, and providing a retirement home for

old and crippled workers. In addition, they wanted to prevent African

peasants from competing with them in agriculture and the land market.

The size of the homelands reflects the process of colonial dispossession

that resulted in the White farmers owning most of the land. The State

supported the homelands system because it promotes the interests of the

capitalists and also because it wanted to prevent the development of a

urbanized African working class. See position paper on fighting racism

for discussion of racial capitalism in South Africa

12. It is possible that the very idea that people should dominate and

exploit nature only emerged after relationships of domination and

exploitation developed within human society [17]. In classless

societies, according this theory, people saw themselves as part of

nature, but with the emergence of inequality a new worldview in which

others (humans and the environment) were seen as things to be

manipulated and controlled develops.

13. We reject the idea that the environment can be saved by means of the

State, or by electing a Green Party. Not only does the State defend

capitalism, but the State is itself one of the main causes of

environmental destruction.

4. Why Environmental Issues are Directly Relevant to the Working

Class

14. At a general level, it is clear that the environmental crisis

affects everybody, and threatens the survival of the human race as a

whole.

15. However, even though the environmental crisis is a global threat, it

is the working class (and working peasantry) that is most severely

affected by the various environmental problems [18].

15.1. It is the working class which has to take the dangerous jobs that

cause environmental degradation. At least three workers died of exposure

to mercury waste at the Thor Chemicals plant in KwaZulu-Natal [19]. The

company got off with a R13,500 fine in 1995. Farmers in South Africa (as

well as the State) routinely make use of dangerous pesticides which are

banned or restricted in their countries of manufacture [20]. The workers

who do the actual spraying are often untrained, lack protective

clothing, and are often not able to read the labels that explain

appropriate safety procedures. As a result, at least 1600 South Africans

die from the chronic effects of pesticides every year.

15.2. Working class communities, particularly working class Black

townships and squatter camps, also bear the brunt of environmental

problems. Pollution levels in Soweto are two and a half times higher

than anywhere else in the country, and children in Soweto suffer from

more asthma and chest colds, and take longer to recover from respiratory

diseases, than children elsewhere [21].

15.3. Because of the racial division of labour in South Africa (which

confined Africans to low-paying unskilled and semi-skilled jobs),

because of the design of the Apartheid city (dirty industries and dumps

were located near townships rather than White suburbs), and because of

the homeland system, it is clear that the Black working class is the

main victim of South Africa’s environmental crisis.

15.4. Therefore, a safe environment is a basic need for the workers and

the poor of South Africa. The environment is not just something “out

there” such as the veld, sea etc. The environment also refers to where

people live and work [22]. We can distinguish between “green”

environmental issues (like wildlife, trees, ozone layer etc.), and

“brown” environmental issues (like workplace safety and community

development) [23]. The two are obviously connected: brown ecological

issues (like lack of sewerage facilities) directly affect green

ecological issues (like marine life); tackling brown issues will

generally improve green ecology.

15.5. Unlike the working class, the bosses and the rulers, including the

Black politicians and Black business, are protected from the effects of

their greed and appetite for power by their air-conditioned offices and

luxury suburban homes.

15.6. While in the long-term a global environmental crisis would

obviously affect everyone, it is not true that everybody shares an

immediate interest in fighting against the environmental crisis: the

bosses and the State benefit from the processes that harm the

environment and the middle classes can at the very least avoid contact

with many environmental hazards [24]. Only the workers and the poor have

a direct interest right now in fighting for a clean environment.

16. There is clear evidence of environmental concern and awareness on

the part of the Black working class (eg). the involvement of the

Chemical Workers Industrial Union in the campaign against Thor

Chemicals, linking opposition to the dangerous working co nditions at

the Thor plant to opposition to the company’s practice of importing

toxic waste [25].

17. It is, however, undoubtedly true that the membership of most

environmental organizations in South Africa (and in a number of other

countries) is mainly White and middle-class [26]. As should be obvious

from what we have said before, we reject the view that this membership

profile can be explained in terms of the inherently “White” or

“petty-bourgeois” nature of environmental issues [27].

17.1. A number of factors make it difficult for Black working class

people to get involved in environmental organizations. These include: a

lack of time, inability to pay high membership fees (the Wildlife

Society charges R80 per year), a degree of ignorance around

environmental problems, and, finally, a lack of confidence in getting

involved in political activity [28]. This explanation is inadequate

because the Black working class has, despite these sorts of obstacles,

built large and powerful trade union and civic movements.

17.2. Part of the explanation lies with the fact that many working class

people have been alienated by the actions of sections of the

environmentalist movement. These sections focussed their attention on

wilderness and wildlife conservation, and strongly supported the State’s

establishment of nature reserves. But many of these reserves were

established by means of the forced removal of rural communities, who

thus lost their land as well as access to natural resources such as fish

and building materials. To add insult to injury, many of these nature

reserves were (until the 1990s) reserved for “Whites only”. These

practices can only breed hatred for conservation among the rural poor

[29].

17.3. Related to this is the fact that few environmental organizations

in South Africa address environmental issues of direct relevance to the

working class [30]. To use the distinction we drew above, they focus on

“green” environmental issues (wildlife, ozone layer etc.) as opposed to

the “brown” environmental issues (health and safety, community

development) that working class people tend to emphasize. For example,

the Campaign to Save St. Lucia nature reserve that begun in 1989

generally failed to con sult the people who lived in the area, many of

whom had been forcibly removed when the reserve was set up

5. Mass Organizing and Anarcho-Syndicalism: The Way Forward for the

Future of the Planet

18. Mass action and a working class revolution are the only real ways to

deal with the environmental crisis.

18.1. The environmental crisis was generated by capitalism and the

State, and can only be dealt with by challenging the power of these

forces. We believe that only mass organizing and mass actions, as

opposed to elections and lobbying, are effective methods of struggle.

18.2. Because of the manner in which capitalism and the State by their

very nature generate environmental destruction it is necessary in the

long term to overthrow these structures and create a society based on

real freedom and production and distribution on the basis of need, not

profit. This society can be called Anarchism or stateless socialism.

18.3. The working class is the only force in society capable of

accomplish these tasks. As the main victim of the environmental crisis,

and as the victim of capitalism as a whole, the working class has a

direct interest in dealing with the environmental crisis and in

resisting and overturning the capitalist system as a whole. By contrast,

the ruling class, and sections of the middle class, are dependent on the

continued survival of capitalism and the State, and are also able to

avoid the worst effects of the environmental crisis.

18.4. In addition, the working class (and working peasantry) is the

source of all social wealth and is thus able, by action at the point of

production, to wield a powerful weapon against the bosses and the

rulers. We believe that the power of the workers must be brought to bear

in the struggle to halt the environmental crisis.

18.4. Finally, because the working class (and working peasantry) produce

all social wealth, only these classes can overthrow capitalism and the

State and create a free society in their place, because only these

classes do not need to exploit.

19. We believe that workplace organizing is the key to saving the

environment, in both the short-term and the long-term.

19.1. Because a large proportion of environmental damage takes place at

the point of production (as the result of dangerous technologies, poor

plant maintenance, hazardous operating procedures, the handling of

dangerous substances, poor worker training), and because the workers and

their communities are the main victims of this pollution , “[t]rade

union struggles for health and safety constitute the first line of

defense for an embattled environment” [31].

19.2. The working class, organized in trade unions, allied with

communities struggling against environmental abuses can go a long way in

stopping the State/ capitalist onslaught against the planet. As we

argued above, dealing with brown ecological issues (safety, health etc.)

will definitely benefit green ecological issues (wildlife, sea etc.).

This sort of mass organizing by the productive working class will do far

more to stop the bosses than the small-scale guerrilla and obstruction

tactics favored by groups such as Earth First!, such as sabotaging

bulldozers [32].

19.3. In the long-term the unions can not only defend the environment

but save it. Inspired by the revolutionary ideas of Anarchism, and

structured in a non-bureaucratic, decentralized and democratic manner,

the unions can be the battering ram that smashes capitalism and the

State, by seizing the factories, mines etc. and putting them under the

control of the workers (in cooperation with community structures).

19.4. A working class revolution will help the environment in four ways.

First, the capitalist/ State system that was the main cause of

environmental problems, a system oriented to profit and power, will be

replaced by a society based on need-satisfaction and grassroots

democracy. Secondly, the excessive levels of consumption by the upper

class and the middle class will be eliminated altogether, as will the

idea that happiness can only be gained by buying more and more useless

commodities [33]. Thirdly, the introduction of social and economic

equality will end the environmental degradation forced on the poor by

means such as land shortages and the homelands system. And finally, the

workers will be able to install (and further develop) the ecologically

sustainable technologies that the bosses suppress [34].

6. What Will a Future Anarchist Society Look Like, and How Does this

Relate to the Environment?

20. The two fundamental structures of the Anarchist society will be the

Syndicate (democratic workplace associations) and the Free City-Commune

(the self-managed city or village, made up of syndicates and community

committees in a given area) [35].

20.1. Communes will be federated into regions and nations; they will

also be linked by federations of Syndicates that provide services

impossible to organize purely at the level of the individual Commune

(eg. transcontinental railways, post).

20.2. Each Commune must be located in a particular ecological region

(Bio-region) and must learn to preserve, enhance and integrate itself

into that region’s natural dynamics.

20.3. The trade unions and civic associations provide the nucleus of the

future syndicates and communes.

7. Workers Solidarity Federation Activity on the Environment

General perspectives

21. The role of Workers Solidarity Federation is first and foremost to

spread the ideas of Anarchism as far and far as possible. We are also in

favor of helping the working class organize itself and increase its

confidence in its own decision-making capacity.

22. A crucial part of our work is to link a criticism of the present

society with a vision of how society could be organized to benefit the

masses. We support all progressive struggles, for their aims, for the

confidence that campaigning gives people, and because it is in struggle

that ideas are spread.

23. We always try to relate our ideas to the day to day needs and

struggles of the working class. We are opposed to an abstract form of

environmentalism that does not link itself to the class struggle.

Guidelines for day-to-day activities

24. Call for workers in polluting factories to enforce safety rules and

monitor pollution. Support actions by workers and the local community to

stop/ reduce pollution. Where factories cannot be made safe we can

demand that they be closed but that their workers get employed at the

same pay levels and skill in the local area.

25. Call for the shutting down of all nuclear power stations under

capitalism because the placing of profits before human needs means that

these facilities will never be safe.

26. Link the fight for land redistribution to the issue of how the

homelands system has generated severe environmental problems. Argue that

the redistributed land should be farmed by means of sustainable

agricultural practices.

27. Support wilderness preservation in the form of nature reserves, but,

recognizing that such reserves have often been set up at the expense of

local communities, and the resentment this creates, call for these

communities to retain access to some grazing, dry wood, and other

resources. Demand that local communities receive cut from gate takings.

Unionize workers at these facilities.

28. Oppose all testing of atomic, biological and chemical weapons in all

circumstances and support blacking of goods and services as well as

other direct action to halt these tests.

29. Oppose the practice of vivisection not just for its cruelty but for

its scientific flaws. Link this issue to the struggle for health and

safety by pointing out how bogus “scientific” testing on animals results

in the exposure of the working class to unsafe medicines.

30. Call for strike action against companies strip mining forests to

force them to reforest and manage extraction. Support unionization of

workers in these industries and their revolutionary education.

31. Call on unions to fund their own environmental monitoring section

answerable to the workers and community affected. Call on unions to

publicize and organize action against industries that expose workers and

the community at large to toxic substances, pollution etc.

32. Within unions also demand industry use recycled products where

possible and find alternatives for products or by-products that harm the

environment. This should be backed by industrial action.

To Sum Up

catastrophic results.

environmental crisis as it the main victim of this crisis. By contrast

the ruling class profits from the crisis.

effective way to fight the environmental crisis in the short-term.

of capitalism and the State by Anarchism or stateless socialism.

Anarchist society, but this will take place only on an

environmentally-sustainable basis.

winning the battle to end the environmental crisis, and its causes.

 

[1] Cooper, Dave, (1991) “From Soil Erosion to Sustainability: land use

in South Africa,” in Cock, Jacklyn and Eddie Koch (editors), (1991),

Going Green: People, Politics And The Environment In South Africa. Cape

Town. Oxford University Press. p177.

[2] Three books that provide a good overview of environmental issues in

South Africa are Cock, Jacklyn and Eddie Koch (editors), (1991), Going

Green. Cape Town. Oxford University Press; Koch, Eddie, Cooper Dave and

Henk Coetzee, (1990), Waste, Water And Wildlife: The Politics Of Ecology

In South Africa. Penguin Forum Series; Ramphele, Mamphela (editor),

(1991), Restoring The Land: Environment And Change In Post-Apartheid

South Africa. London. Panos Institute.

[3] This figure and the next one come from Koch, Cooper and Coetzee,

(1990), p5. and Cooper (1991), p177, respectively.

[4] Basically the same definitions as those provided by Gould, J.D.

(1972), Economic Growth in History pp1-2.

[5] Purchase, Graham (1993), “Rethinking the Fall of State-Communism”,

in Rebel Worker, volume 12, no 9 (108) pp15-16. The examples of

environmentally-friendly technologies come from Purchase, (1993), pp15-6

and Graham Purchase, (1991), Anarchist Organization: Suggestions and

Possibilities. Sydney. Black Swan. pp3-5, 21–3.

[6] The following two sections are based on McLoughlin, Conor, (1992),

“Does ‘Saving The Planet’ Mean An End To Industry, Progress And

Development?”, in Workers Solidarity no 36. Ireland.

[7] Graham Purchase, (1993), p17.

[8] For an example of this kind of argument, see Ted Trainer, (1991),

“Third World Poverty”, in Andrew Dobson (ed) The Green Reader. Andre

Deutsch. London.

[9] The argument presented in this section draws on Bill Meyers.

“Ecology and Anarcho-syndicalism”, Ideas and Action no 13.

[10] Figures for the UK from Robert Lekachman and Borin van Loon,

(1981), Capitalism for Beginners. Pantheon Books. New York, esp. 44–5,

67, 70. and Class War (1992), Unfinished Business: The Politics Of Class

War. AK Press and CWF, p. 77. For the USA see Lind, Micheal, The Next

American Nation, cited in “Stringing up the Yuppies”, (24 September

1995), Sunday Times, p14; Business Week which estimated in 1991 36

million Americans (15% of the total population) were living in poverty;

and New York Times, Sept . 25, 1992

[11] This section is based on McLoughlin (1992); Class War (1992),

pp30-1; and Lekachman and van Loon, (1981), pp62-4.

[12] McLoughlin (1992); Purchase (1991), p4.

[13] Weekly Mail (22–8 May 1992) p34 for this and other examples.

[14] This section is based on Cock, Jacklyn, (1991a), “Going Green at

the Grassroots: The Environment As A Political Issue,” in Cock, Jacklyn

and Eddie Koch (editors), 1991, Going Green. Cape Town. Oxford

University Press. pp8-9.

[15] Koch, Cooper and Koetzee (1990), pp15-6, 25–27; Ann Eveleth,

(September 1–7, 1995), “SADF used ivory to fund war in Angola”, in Mail

and Guardian, p6; Ann Eveleth, (Sept 8–14 1995) “New claims of SADF

ivory smuggling”, in Mail and Guardian, p8.

[16] On the environmental impact of the homelands system see Koch,

Cooper and Coetzee (1990), pp6-9; also Cooper (1991) pp177-9). For an

analysis of why the capitalists and the government promoted the

homelands system and migrant labor, see Callinicos, Luli, (1981), Gold

and Workers 1886–1924, volume 1 of A People’s History of South Africa.

Ravan Press. Braamfontein, especially Chapter 17; Lacey, M., (1981),

Working For Boroko: The Origins Of A Coercive Labor System In South

Africa. Ravan. Braamfontein.; Legassick, M, (1974), “South Africa:

capital accumulation and violence,” Economy and Society vol. 3, no. 3.;

Saul, John S. and Stephen Gelb, (1986), The Crisis in South Africa, Zed

Books. Revised edition; Posel, D., (1991), The Making Of Apartheid

1948–61 : Conflict And Compromise. Clarendon Press. Oxford, esp Chapter

1.

[17] Green Anarchism: Its Origins And Influences, text of PNR’s lecture

during the Workers Education Association (Oxford Industrial Branch),

Anarchism Course, (24 November 1992), pp21-2.

[18] Crompton, Rod and Alec Erwin, (1991), “Reds And Greens: Labor And

The Environment,” in Cock, Jacklyn and Eddie Koch, 1991, Going Green.

Oxford University Press. Cape Town. p80; Chemical Workers Industrial

Union (1991), “The Fight for Health and Safety”, in Ramphele, Mamphela

(editor), 1991, Restoring the Land. London. Panos Institute. p80; also

Koch and Hartford cited in Cock (1991a) p14. For similar arguments for

the USA, see J. Baugh, (1991), “African-Americans and the Environment: A

Review Essay,” in Policy Studies Journal, vol. 19, no. 2, p194;

Morrison, D.E. and R.E. Dunlap (1986), “Environmentalism And Elitism: A

Conceptual And Empirical Analysis,” in Environmental Management, vol.

10, no. 5, pp586; van Liere, K.D. and R.E. Dunlap, (1980), “The Social

Bases of Environmental Concern: A Review Of Hypotheses, Explanations And

Empirical Evidence,” in Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 44, no. 2.

pp183-4, 189–90. Cf. to Lowe, P. and J. Goyder, (1983), Environmental

Groups in Politics. George Allen and Unwin. London. pp14-5; McCloughlin

(1992).

[19] Crompton and Erwin (1991) pp82-3; Mail and Guardian April 1995.

[20] Cooper (1991) p185.

[21] Cock (1991a) p4; for other examples see Koch (1991),“Rainbow

Alliances: Community Struggles Around Environmental Problems,” in Cock,

Jacklyn and Eddie Koch, 1991, Going Green. Oxford University Press. Cape

Town. pp21-2; and Khan, Farieda, 1991, “Environmental Sanitation”, in

Ramphele, Mamphela (editor), 1991, Restoring the Land. London. Panos

Institute. p132.

[22] Crompton and Erwin, (1991), p80; also David McDonald, (September

1994), “Black Worker, Brown Burden: municipal workers and the

environment”, South African Labor Bulletin, Vol 18, no 4. p73.

[23] McDonald (1994) p73.

[24] see also A. Dobson, (1990), Green Political Theory: An

Introduction. Unwin Hyman. London. pp152-3.

[25] see Koch (1991), “Rainbow Alliances” for an overview of community

and worker struggles around environmental issues since the late 1980s

[26] On South Africa, see Ulrich, N. and L. van der Walt, (1994), Green

Politics In South Africa: The Ideological And Social Composition Of The

South African Environmentalist Movement, With Special Reference To

Earthlife Africa And The Wildlife Society Of Southern Africa. Sociology

Dept. University of the Witwatersrand. For elsewhere, see (eg). see

Baugh, J., (1991); Cotgrove, S. and A. Duff, (1980), “Environmentalism,

Middle Class Radicalism, and Politics,” in Sociological Review, Vol 32.

pp334,340,342; Lowe, P. and J. Goyder, (1983); Morrison, D.E. and R.E.

Dunlap (1986); Taylor, D.E., (1989), “Blacks and The Environment:

Towards And Explanation Of The Concern And Action Gap Between Blacks And

Whites,” in Environment and Behavior, vol. 21, no. 2; van Liere, K.D.

and R.E. Dunlap, (1980).

[27] For examples of this line of argument see Dobson (1993) p218; Koch,

Cooper and Koetzee, (1990), p. iv; Lowe and Goyder (1980), p10; Lowe and

Goyder (1983) pp25-6; van Liere and Dunlap (1980) p183.

[28] McDonald, David, (September 1994), “Black Worker, Brown Burden:

municipal workers and the environment”, South African Labor Bulletin,

Vol 18, no 4. p76; Ramphele, Mamphela, (1991), “’New Day Rising’:

Environmental Issues And The Struggle For A New South Africa,” in

Ramphele, Mamphela (editor), 1991, Restoring the Land. London. Panos

Institute p6; also Taylor (1989) pp199-200, also 190–2; Taylor, D.,

(1990), “Can the Environmental Movement Attract and Maintain the Support

of Minorities?,” in B. Bryant and P. Mohai (eds), The Proceedings of the

Michigan Conference on Race and the Incidence of Environmental Hazards.

pp38-40; footnote 3 (p 54); the converse argument (that middle class

people are generally especially prominent in political and voluntary

organizations) is found in Lowe and Goyder (1983) p11; Morrison and

Dunlap (1986) p583; Taylor (1989) p184; van Liere and Dunlap (1980)

p184.

[29] See Cock (1991a) pp1-2; Cock (1991b), “The Politics of Ecology:

Moving Away From The Authoritarian Conservation And Towards Green

Politics,” Ramphele, Mamphela (editor), 1991, Restoring the Land.

London. Panos Institute; also see AFRA (1991), “Animals versus People:

the Tembe Elephant Park,” in Cock, Jacklyn and Eddie Koch, 1991, Going

Green. Oxford University Press. Cape Town; Ramphele (1991) p6; Koch,

Cooper and Coetzee (1990) pp22-5.; for similar experiences in the USA

see Taylor (1990) p42.

[30] cf. Taylor (1990) pp40-1; Baugh (1991) pp182-3; Cock (1991a) p2;

Cock (1991b) pp13-14; Koch, Cooper and Coetzee (1990) p2; Ramphele

(1991) p6; also Khan (1990) p36; Marais, H., (1991), “When Green Turns

to White,” in Work in Progress, no 89.; Koch, Cooper and Koetzee (1990)

pp24-5; quoted in Koch, Cooper and Coetzee (1990) pp24-5; Ramphele,

Mamphela, (1991), p7.

[31] Crompton and Erwin (1991) p80; also Chemical Workers Industrial

Union (1991); McDonald (1994).

[32] Bill Meyers. “Ecology and Anarcho-syndicalism”, Ideas and Action;

see Anon. You Can’t Blow Up A Social Relationship: The Anarchist Case

Against Terrorism for a detailed examination of the case for mass

organizing and actions instead of small-scale guerrilla and terrorist

approaches.

[33] see Bill Meyers. “Ecology and Anarcho-syndicalism”

[34] Mark McGuire, (1993), “Book Review Corner”, Rebel Worker, vol 12,

no. 6 (108)). p12.

[35] on the theory of the Communes and the Syndicates as developed by

classical Anarchism, see Guerin, Daniel, (1970), Anarchism: From Theory

To Practice. Monthly Review Press. New York and London. Chapter 2, esp.

pp56-60. The addition of the Bio-regional dimension is found in Purchase

(1993), Purchase (1991) and Purchase, Graham, (1990), Anarchist Society

and its Practical Realization. San Francisco. See Sharp Press.