Marxism and the Environment

Kimball Cariou

In our enthusiasm to get back into action quickly, our 30^th Convention adopted a Plan of Work covering what we considered the essentials. Since then, we have carried out a good part of that Plan ... but not all of it. Unforeseen developments (especially the Election Act amendments) forced us to change some priorities, and we have gained a stronger appreciation of the difficulties in carrying out political activities on a Canada-wide scale with a handful of staff.

In my opinion, one of the most unfortunate consequences has been the slow progress toward a new draft programme. In retrospect, the warnings that our target of a 1995 special convention to adopt such a draft were unrealistic were probably right. It is apparent now that unless we leave the drafting in the hands of a very small number of comrades, that date is impossible. And in any event, such a procedure would leave most of our members out of a valuable part of the process, i.e. the stage of researching concepts, writing up their views on what should or should not be in the programme, etc. I think we should bite the bullet and admit that to do this work properly we will need 2 or 3 more years.

That said, I want to submit some views on what should be included in a new programme, in particular a Marxist analysis of the environmental crisis.

Looking through the volumes of our press, we can see that Communists were involved in many environmental struggles, going back decades. In B.C., for example, Communists in the UFAWU presented the first public brief against Alcan’s devastation of the Nechako river system. What we failed to do, however, was to make a systematic study of the growing global crisis of the environment, or to develop a serious policy to resolve the crisis.

Our 1971 programme noted that “Poverty, urban blight, air, land and water pollution and lack of decent housing are becoming more acute. These are the social consequences of monopoly capitalism.” True enough. But virtually the only mention of the issue came in the chapter on “A Democratic Anti-Monopoly Government,” which would “undertake ... environmental and pollution control.”

It’s true that environmental struggles were less widespread at that time. Still, this gaping hole in our programme rapidly became more and more obvious. The programme discussions of the latter 1980s started to deal with this gap; now we have to address it properly, or risk permanent political marginalization, in my opinion.

Our previous concept on this issue was (roughly speaking): pollution and environmental degradation are mainly a product of the corporate drive for maximum profits, not the result of industrial activity and human consumption in general. Therefore, capitalism is the culprit, and we need strict controls on the corporate offenders. That approach had some merit, since under capitalism it is absolutely true that the corporations bear the responsibility for the worst forms of industrial pollution, and for promoting wasteful consumption patterns, all in the name of higher profits. We were right to take a class position, placing the blame on the corporations, not individuals.

But this position was also too limited and narrow. It led us to downplay reports about environmental problems in the socialist world, for example. In the debate over the impacts of large-scale industrial projects under socialism, we usually (myself included) argued that since profit incentive was absent under socialism, there was no inherent factor blocking attempts to carry out such projects in a non-environmentally-destructive manner. Well, the complete story of existing socialism and the environment remains to be told. There were genuine successes, including nature preserves, the struggle to save Lake Baikal, etc. Socialism allowed many creative innovations, such as central heating systems in major cities. Many consumer products lacked the fashion flair to be deemed attractive, but they often lasted nearly forever; built in obsolescence to increase sales was unheard of.

But there were also many failures. Some day scientists and economists may be able to reckon up the costs and benefits of the Caspian Sea water diversions, for example. Were the wealth and jobs created by using that water for cotton production worth the eventual price, such as the shrinking and salinization of that body of water, the loss of its thriving fishery, and the current economic problems of the region?

There were many reasons why such projects were a major feature of socialist construction. Imperialist boycotts and economic blockades, and military threats and attacks, especially the Nazi invasion, forced the CPSU and the Soviet people to develop the economy as fast as they could. Some environmental damage was inevitable in the process; if that was part of the price necessary to defeat fascism in World War II, I for one would argue it was worth paying. Similarly, some environmental degradation was unavoidable during their necessary process of building new industries and raising living standards across the Soviet Union.

Unfortunately, the tendency to build on a vast scale without looking for ways to minimize the environmental impact became the norm, even when socialism was not facing a life-and-death crisis. Was the scale of ecological damage worse than under capitalism, as our opponents claim? Right now, there seems to be no certain answer. All we can conclude is that while socialism offers the opportunity to reduce the impact of industry on the environment, it requires conscious effort and planning to translate this opportunity into reality. Future socialist revolutions will have the tremendous advantage of knowing the scope of this problem, and some of the possible solutions.

In the meantime, our coming programme needs to contain a clear Marxist position on this issue, to help guide us through the difficult, often contradictory questions arising today. Our position should be based on the fundamental need to combine both the short and the long-range interests of working people. Abandoning one or the other will lead us astray.

On the contentious issue of logging practices, for example, most agree that the forestry corporations have a wretched history of wasting the resource, clear-cutting on a hugely unnecessary scale, damaging valuable streams and rivers, and allowing countless loggers and mill-workers to meet with injury and death through shoddy safety standards. Everyone is aware that technological changes in the industry are by far the main cause of job losses. If we took into account only the short-term interests of forestry workers, we might agree with the companies’ approach, pushing for maximum logging in the most profitable areas, regardless of future consequences. Ten or twenty years down the road, that would leave the MacMillan Bloedels ready to finish transferring their forestry operations to other countries, having harvested the most profitable forests; but the workers and their families would be left surrounded by a far less productive landscape, stuck with homes they couldn’t sell, in communities with no future.

This nightmare scenario is precisely why we advocate a wide-ranging alternative: investments in secondary processing and manufacturing of wood products, a ban on exports of raw logs, preservation of key old-growth forests and watersheds, an end to the tree-farm license system which turns the resource over to the corporations, stricter adherence to high environmental standards, a stop to clear-cutting as the main form of logging. If adapted as a package, this alternative would minimize job losses, preserve crucial watersheds, create new employment opportunities, and put more control of the resource into the hands of working people. It makes no sense for Communists to argue for anything less than the whole set of demands; picking out one or two is inadequate.

But we need to go further. We need to advance a perspective of socialism that takes account of the contradictions threatening the future of the human race. Industrial and other forms of economic activity cannot expand indefinitely without endangering the biosphere in which we live, and exhausting our finite supply of resources. Nor is it tenable to allow the present global imbalances of resource consumption and waste emissions to continue.

While many environmentalists have led valuable struggles on particular issues, coming up with a wealth of creative proposals to reduce ecological degradation, this is not enough. Individual capitalists may adopt useful environmental techniques, and local initiatives can help to point the way to a sustainable future, but the private-profit system will inevitably overwhelm these efforts, for example by moving ‘dirty’ industries to countries where people have less opportunity to object. Our responsibility is to integrate the best environmental ideas into a socialist alternative, including a shorter workweek. We need to develop a concept of socialism which is not based on an ever-increasing accumulation of material goods, but rather on providing a minimum standard of living, with free, high-quality education, health care, child care, cultural programs, full employment, clean air and water.

Our party has never backed away from a difficult struggle. This is a crucial one. We don’t need to drop everything else, or spend all our time studying the details of particular proposals. But unless we have a solid analysis of this critical problem, and become more involved in environmental struggles, it will be virtually impossible to convince young people that we take their future seriously. We have to be both frank about the environmental shortcomings of socialist societies until now, and firm in our conviction that only socialism offers the human race a chance to avoid global catastrophe.

Spark! #3, pgs. 2-7

Economic Policy on the Shorter Work Week in Canada

by R.J. Reierson

Proposal

1. The 32-hour, four-day workweek should be established in definite stages primarily through provincial and federal legislation, and enforcement that involves workers in all sectors.

2. Immediately, the provincial workweek norms in Canada should be reduced to 40 hours. This should be coupled with a ban on all regular overtime over the 40 hours. The federal government now has a norm of 40 hours; it too should ban all regular overtime over 40 hours in federally regulated industries. Overtime for emergency reasons should be clearly defined, voluntary, and continue to be paid at time and a half (unless union contracts specify a higher amount)

3. In two stages, on a clear timetable, the provincial and federal governments should reduce the norm for the workweek to 36 hours and to 32 hours, to achieve the four-day week with a maximum of 8 hours per day. The overtime limits should also be reduced but in negotiation with unions in all affected sectors to assure that effective transitional measures are taken.

4. There should be increases in the provincial and federal minimum wages and decreases in income taxes on lower incomes to help protect the take-home pay of workers with below-average wages.

5. The provincial and federal governments should require for all salaried jobs, where not already clearly stated, that employers must state the number of hours per week for which a salary is being paid and that the number of hours of work for salaried workers must conform to labour standards. All employers should be required to state clearly on pay slips the number of hours for which wages or salaries are paid.

6. There is a long-term trend to increasing unemployment and underemployment in Canada as under capitalism as a whole. Growing unemployment hits hardest at the lowest paid, the least skilled or trained, and those with least seniority, but workers in virtually all occupational levels are being affected. For those who become unemployed, the duration of unemployment has become longer. General insecurity and desperation among workers is growing and competition over jobs, especially better paid or ‘good’ job, is intensifying. At the same time the federal government continues to cut eligibility and benefits for unemployment insurance.

7. More unemployed people, younger and older, and single parent mothers are falling into absolute poverty and coming to depend on social assistance to survive. Families are also faced with more pressures to look after unemployed children and spouses. Around one in five Canadians depends on unemployment insurance or social ‘assistance.’

8. Mass unemployment (the industrial reserve army of labour), in Canada and internationally, is the major factor weighing down heavily on wages and permitting capitalists to screw up the rate of exploitation of labour. The real wages for most workers in Canada have been stagnating or falling since the mid-1970s. The pressures of unemployment and international competition on real wages have been supplemented by federal and provincial government wage rollback programs. Attacks on real wages have been paralleled with attacks on social programs; cuts in eligibility and benefits are reducing the social wage of working people.

9. The deteriorating employment and income situation of most workers has been accompanied by the intensification of work in both the private and public sectors. This is promoted in anti-labour management strategies such as ‘lean production,’ ‘total quality management,’ etc., whose goal is to increase labour productivity both quantitatively and qualitatively for higher profits with a reduced labour force.

10. There is evidence that working time is being extended. At present, despite mass unemployment, overtime is increasing. So also is moonlighting or multiple job holding. Capitalism has swept away major limits to the natural and social rhythms of work. The shift system, which Marx railed against in the 19th century, is deeply entrenched, and what remains of common pause days like Sundays and official holidays are being rapidly eroded. Capitalists have an inherent desire to keep their means of production always engaged. “To appropriate labour during all the 24 hours of the day is, therefore, the inherent tendency of capitalist production” (Capital, I, 245).

11. The revolution in family structure, where now a majority of married women are in the labour force, has meant that the average paid working time of households has shot up to 70 or more hours per week. Yet most two-earner households are not significantly better off than were one-earner families two or three decades ago; and many are worse off.

12. Not only is the economic security and well-being of the working class suffering, but so also are health standards. Although there has been an overall decline in fatal accidents, job injuries have not declined substantially and, in some industries such as construction, they are growing. There is mounting evidence about and awareness of environmentally related sickness and disease from work and pollution-related causes. There is also medical and social evidence of growing work stress, work exhaustion, depression, and alienation in the labour force.

13. Capitalist accumulation and impoverishment – These trends reflect the process of impoverishment under capitalism. They are the direct consequences of the general process of capital accumulation (or growth) and not an atypical situation or policy mistake. Neo-conservative policy has made things worse for the working class, but impoverishment is systemic to capitalism and will not be eradicated except through establishing working class power and socialism.

14. Since the mid-1970s there has been a process of absolute impoverishment going on in Canada. This has been accompanied by relative impoverishment, in which capitalist incomes and wealth generally increased relative to those of the working class.

15. The exploitation of labour has been increasing. Labour productivity has continued to rise during this period, though for several reasons it has grown somewhat more slowly than in other advanced capitalist countries (such as Japan and Germany). Thus, with productivity rising but most wages stagnant or falling, the gains from increased productivity have been flowing to capitalist owners, especially the transnationals

16. An injury to one is an injury to all – The biggest gap in income and wealth in capitalist society is between capitalists and workers. But within the working class there are major gaps in incomes and conditions. Overall, the working class has been going backwards economically. Some groups have been especially hard hit, but a smaller number have been holding their own or actually doing a bit better, especially among those in established positions or with the protection of seniority in more stable sectors.

17. Among the hardest hit by capitalist unemployment and impoverishment are young workers and those with little or no seniority; older workers forced into permanent lay-offs; women in segregated low-paid job ghettos; workers facing racial discrimination or discrimination for disabilities.

18. The Communist Party works to strengthen economically and politically the position of the working class as a whole against the capitalist class, particularly Canadian and foreign transnational corporations, who constitute the main enemy of the working class.

19. To strengthen the position of the working class and to foster unity and solidarity among workers, policies must act as a force for unifying the vast majority of workers and struggles for reforms must be seen firmly within the context of the struggle for socialism. In conditions of growing impoverishment, fighting for jobs, particularly good jobs, and for improving the conditions of the poorest paid and most vulnerable is the top priority. Substantial measures to reduce unemployment and strengthen the position of the weakest sections of the working class will reduce exploitative pressures on all workers and strengthen the power of the entire working class.

20. Tackling the crisis of overwork and the maldistribution of work is a crucial means to reduce unemployment, to advance the position of the most marginalized workers, and to raise consciousness among workers of their common class economic and social interests. It is not the only means, but for a variety of economic, family, and environmental reasons it is a question that is today on the historical agenda. (Some statistical points on the extent of overwork are contained in People’s Voice articles on the issue.

21. Labour action and the State – It will not be possible to reduce the workweek for the working class as a whole without state action under the active political pressure of the working class movement. It is possible and desirable that individual unions and groups of unions struggle to reduce the workweek in their particular sector. For instance, in industries with a high level of monopoly or some form of protection from capital flight (such as the Auto Pact) it may be possible to achieve a significantly shorter workweek through collective bargaining without direct state intervention. However, under capitalist competition which is now not only domestic but increasingly international, it is always possible and likely that unorganized firms will undercut the conditions of unionized firms. Hence, it is necessary to compel the state to put a lower limit or floor on cutthroat pressures to lower standards. Historically, all major changes affecting the working day and working week have been associated with the political action of labour and winning state changes to legislation.

22. The increasingly free movement of capital and the growing power of the transnational corporations constitute very real threats to any group of workers attempting to strengthen their position without the active support of the state. Inevitably, any programs to reduce the workweek will give rise to questions of the ‘free movement’ of capital and to measures to control and end that free movement, which is today a crucial capitalist means of weakening the position of the working class.

23. Why 32 hours? The Communist Party demands the reduction of the workweek to 32 hours. Why focus on reductions of the workweek rather than, say, the more general ‘reduced working time’? First, because the working week still constitutes the central norm in labour standards legislation affecting wage and salary earners and has the potentially greatest effect on total work time over a lifetime. Second, because in comparison with increases in vacation periods, which is another major alternative, changes in the working week are more likely to generate regular employment for the unemployed and underemployed. (In Canada, most vacations tend to be taken in the summer, so increased vacations would tend to create seasonal not full-year work.) Third, because changes in normal working time during the year is more likely to have a positive continuing effect on reducing the stress of and equalizing the burden of household work for two-earner and single-parent families. Fourth, because changes in the work week will have more immediate effects on work-related accidents and stress; more regular recovery from the debilitating effects of work will also give greater time and stimulus to fight to change the nature of the work itself. Fifth, because it is a more concrete and clearer focus. None of this denies that we should fight to increase vacations with pay, especially to a minimum of four weeks per year.

24. The demand for a 32-hour week is also a demand for a four-day week and a major from the present situation where the five-day week or worse is standard. For instance, in Ontario the official workweek (where overtime clicks in) is 44 hours and overtime is usually allowed by the government through a mal-administered permits system. Research indicates that small incremental changes tend to be absorbed by speeding up the existing work force, so small changes tend not to generate many new jobs. By contrast, larger changes have a more significant impact for job creation.

25. The question of whether labour should make any concessions in pay for a reduced workweek has had much debate. The generally accepted principle is and should remain a reduced workweek without any loss in pay. However, there must be some realism and recognition of the varying conditions of different groups of workers in applying this principle.

26. First, there should be no reason to back off a complete ban on overtime over the 40-hour week even if it does reduce the incomes of some workers. Capitalists, unfortunately often with the collaboration of right-wing union leaderships, have hooked some groups of workers into accepting regular overtime to the point that the workers view it as part of the regular wage and bargaining on base rates and spreading overtime work to unemployed or underemployed workers has been neglected.

27. At the highest levels of the working class the private earnings of some groups of workers have risen to the point where they are ‘materially sufficient’ by any reasonable domestic and, certainly, international standard. There comes a point when we have to say honestly that new RVs, three cars per family, a private swimming pool for every house, suburban bungalows of 3000 square feet, etc., are not needed while others go without and, in any case, are not environmentally sustainable. It is not necessary to define a precise line for material sufficiency. The point is there must be a leadership in fighting for taking productivity gains in reduced hours without pay rollbacks. In some situations it might be possible to accept small decreases in pay, such as five percent, for a major decrease in the workweek such as moving from five to four days. For most workers this is actually an increase in the rate of pay, even if a decline in total earnings, so that there is not necessarily a concession in terms of the rate of exploitation of the overall alignment of power between workers and capitalists.

28. By contrast, there can be very little negotiation in terms of the total incomes of lower and middle-income workers. In fact, increases in the minimum wage must guarantee that any reduced workweek does not make the lowest paid even worse off. Since part-time work is a main cause of low incomes, more full-time jobs and a higher minimum wage will actually improve the real incomes of a large number of lower paid workers. Tax changes are also crucial in this context. The income tax needs to be made more progressive, with significantly lower rates for lower and middle income workers and much higher rates at the top end; of course, other tax changes such as higher corporate taxes, especially against corporate deferred taxes, inheritance taxes, luxury taxes, international transactions taxes, withholding taxes on foreign interest and dividend payments, etc., can be part of a broader package to help.

29. Redistribute Income – Without detracting from the major struggle that will be necessary to win a substantially reduced workweek, we must be honest that the reduced workweek is not a real solution to unemployment or impoverishment. We are not in a situation where there can be ever-continuing incremental gains for the working class under capitalism. The capitalist system is incapable, especially so given the relative decline of Canada and the enveloping environmental crisis, of continuing indefinitely to deliver the goods to increasing numbers of people. But there will be no automatic collapse. Capitalism will continue until the working class is organized and determined to take power, until the working class is prepared to take power from the capitalist class.

Spark #3, pgs. 8-15