By Zac Gillies-Palmer
Let's not let the name of our proposal get in the way of constituting an Australian eco-socialist movement.
There is no electoral shortcut to rehabilitating the relationship between coal-mining communities and environmentalists. If we are serious about implementing radical reforms we need to stop pontificating over the perfect name for our proposal and get on with the job. Until we have a structure to democratically decide on an alternative, ‘Green New Deal’ will do just fine.
Unprecedented Times recently published an article by Nick Daniel and Charlotte Brady making the case for an Australian Green New Deal. For the most part the article was warmly received, but it’s clear that not everyone is on board with the terminology. Sadly, in labour movement circles there seems to be an emphasis on what we would call our Green New Deal rather than the substance of the proposal itself.
While it is clear people are, for the most part, well-intentioned, a preoccupation with labels is derailing the broader left project for economic and ecological justice. At times it feels as though the question of what we call our Green New Deal is deliberately used by skeptics of the proposal to avoid substantive debate.The purpose of this article is to evaluate the two main arguments put forward by critics of naming our proposal Australia’s Green New Deal. I suggest that, while it may not be a perfect name, it is a reasonable working title which shouldn’t get in the way of the immediate task of organising.
The word ‘Green’ is alienating for workers
The underlying logic of removing the word ‘green’ but maintaining the fundamental economic and political elements of a Green New Deal is that we can simply trick eco-skeptical workers into supporting radical reforms without them noticing. It implies that our Green New Deal will be something which is implemented from above by an enlightened Labor Government, without mass support of working people.
Obviously, this misses the point of the project altogether. A Green New Deal is as much a process of deliberation as it is a set of policy ideals. It will necessarily involve environmentalists, workers and other civil society institutions sitting down to democratically negotiate the terms of the economy we want to see in the future. Tactically, it will involve organised pressure from below in the form of strikes and protest. Without a productive coalition between environmentalists and workers it will be impossible to challenge the entrenched political and economic power of the fossil fuel industry. There are no electoral shortcuts when it comes to the radical structural reforms. We need to ensure a rapid and just transition towards a renewable economy.
If we can’t convince coal-dependent workers that they shouldn’t be fearful of the word ‘green’, then how can we expect to persuade them that a radical restructuring of society is not only possible but preferable for all workers in Australia? We should be skeptical of anyone who puts forward a line that we can sneak fundamental reforms past workers by simply amending the ‘optics’ of our project.
No one knows what the New Deal was
Even if this is the case, you don’t need to be a scholar to understand the implication of the words ‘new deal.’ The message is clear and independent of the USA’s Great Depression President FDR. By calling our movement a Green New Deal we aren’t participating in a reenactment of 1930s economic policy. We are tapping into a contemporary global movement. Until we have established a final title for our proposal can be decided, we should adopt language which the majority of socialists and environmentalists recognise.
Remember the Green Bans?
Skeptics of the Green New Deal title speak as though there is no precedent for forthright coalitions between workers, environmentalists and other organising groups. Of course, that is not the case. The experience of the NSW Branch of the Builders Labourers Federation in the 1960s and ‘70s demonstrates that it is possible to overcome the perceived interests of individual fractions of the working class to embrace a general consciousness of our mutual interest in economic and environmental justice. Labourers made the choice stand up for what was right in the face of police violence, forfeited wages and blacklisting, notwithstanding the fact that the word ‘green’ was an obvious and necessary part of the movement’s title.
By forming a coalition between construction workers, feminists, students and resident activists, Green Ban organisers were able to build an enduring coalition along class lines. This, of course, was not an organic development but the product of countless grassroots organisers who made decisions on a collective basis at mass meetings. Their efforts later resulted in significant state concessions and policy reforms. Sadly, many of these gains have been surrendered as we have come to rely more heavily on top down fixes from Australia’s parliaments. It is clear we need a mass movement of working people allied under the cause of climate and economic justice to achieve real change.
So What?
There is no electoral shortcut to rehabilitating the relationship between coal-mining communities and environmentalists. If we are serious about implementing radical reforms we need to stop pontificating over the perfect name for our proposal and get on with the job. Until we have a structure to democratically decide on an alternative, ‘Green New Deal’ will do just fine.
IMAGE CREDIT: "File:Fotografia do movimento Green Ban, parte dos murais de Woolloomooloo.jpg" by Pedro Toniazzo Terres is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0
Showing 1 reaction
Sign in with