社会-生态转型的劳动-自然联盟

IF 2.9 3区 社会学 Q1 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research Pub Date : 2022-08-01 DOI:10.1177/10242589221126633
Peter Nitsche-Whitfield
{"title":"社会-生态转型的劳动-自然联盟","authors":"Peter Nitsche-Whitfield","doi":"10.1177/10242589221126633","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Europe’s current multiple social, ecological and geopolitical crises reveal an urgent need for change. Underlying these crises is a capital accumulation regime focused on generating profits from increased exploitation of labour and extraction from nature, thus threatening our biosphere and undermining our society (Spash, 2021a). Unless urgent action is taken, climate breakdown will bring about a future of untold human suffering, as the recent IPCC (2022a) report underlined. In any case, ecological limits are increasingly constraining human activities, with dramatic consequences of the kind illustrated by recent extreme weather events. In order to maintain the pursuit of economic growth under these conditions, extraction and exploitation will have to become more extreme. But this will only exacerbate the social crisis epitomised by the cost-of-living crisis. In order to avoid this there is a need, as the IPCC (2022b: TS/99) argues, to shift from a ‘GDP growthoriented economy’ to a ‘low-carbon energy-services, well-being, and equity-oriented economy’. A ‘labour–nature alliance’ will be indispensable in enabling such a social-ecological transformation. This article will highlight potentials for a labour–nature alliance in the current circumstances and provide a brief list of recommendations for action. Trade unionists and ecologists have not always seen eye to eye. There have been various historical battles in which they were on opposing sides of the so-called ‘jobs/environment dilemma’ (Räthzel and Uzzell, 2011), for example, in Austria, with the conflicts over Zwentendorf nuclear power station or the hydropower plant in what would become Donau-Auen National Park (Brand and Niedermoser, 2017: 34, 36–39, 134–135; Soder et al., 2018: 529–530). Both organised labour and ecological movements are relatively weak on their own in comparison with organised capital, however. Under current social circumstances it is likely that both will fail in satisfactorily resolving the crises they aim to address. To illustrate this dynamic, I put forward a schematic of possible alliances between three forces: labour, capital and nature (Figure 1). This schematic was developed in my thesis (Nitsche-Whitfield, 2022) and informed by the work of Brand and Wissen (2018) and Laurent and Pochet (2015: 15–27). With the aim of reducing exploitation, at least in the Global North, trade unions are currently in a dominant alliance with capital. This produces a ‘brown’, extractive form of capitalism. On the other hand, the dominant alliance of the environmentalist movement (nature) is focused on working with green capital. This produces a green capitalism that aims to reduce the impacts of extractivist practices. Hence, current alliances are organised around the focal point of capital, thereby bestowing even more power on capital. However, both coalitions with capital are leading to catastrophic consequences for labour and nature, albeit to different degrees, while a bottom-up alliance between labour and nature has the power to be truly transformative (Kalt, 2022: 4–5). Hence, this triangle is not to be read as a classic economic trilemma, as these are not equal options. The triangle is rather an explanatory tool highlighting the abstract choices that capital, labour and nature face. In the following I will characterise the positions of these three actors. Currently, trade unions are stuck in an uphill battle against organised capital that has reaped the fruits of decades of neoliberal globalisation and re-regulation in favour of the interests of financial 1126633 TRS0010.1177/10242589221126633TransferNitsche-Whitfield research-article2022","PeriodicalId":23253,"journal":{"name":"Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research","volume":"8 1","pages":"383 - 387"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A labour–nature alliance for a social-ecological transformation\",\"authors\":\"Peter Nitsche-Whitfield\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10242589221126633\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Europe’s current multiple social, ecological and geopolitical crises reveal an urgent need for change. Underlying these crises is a capital accumulation regime focused on generating profits from increased exploitation of labour and extraction from nature, thus threatening our biosphere and undermining our society (Spash, 2021a). Unless urgent action is taken, climate breakdown will bring about a future of untold human suffering, as the recent IPCC (2022a) report underlined. In any case, ecological limits are increasingly constraining human activities, with dramatic consequences of the kind illustrated by recent extreme weather events. In order to maintain the pursuit of economic growth under these conditions, extraction and exploitation will have to become more extreme. But this will only exacerbate the social crisis epitomised by the cost-of-living crisis. In order to avoid this there is a need, as the IPCC (2022b: TS/99) argues, to shift from a ‘GDP growthoriented economy’ to a ‘low-carbon energy-services, well-being, and equity-oriented economy’. A ‘labour–nature alliance’ will be indispensable in enabling such a social-ecological transformation. This article will highlight potentials for a labour–nature alliance in the current circumstances and provide a brief list of recommendations for action. Trade unionists and ecologists have not always seen eye to eye. There have been various historical battles in which they were on opposing sides of the so-called ‘jobs/environment dilemma’ (Räthzel and Uzzell, 2011), for example, in Austria, with the conflicts over Zwentendorf nuclear power station or the hydropower plant in what would become Donau-Auen National Park (Brand and Niedermoser, 2017: 34, 36–39, 134–135; Soder et al., 2018: 529–530). Both organised labour and ecological movements are relatively weak on their own in comparison with organised capital, however. Under current social circumstances it is likely that both will fail in satisfactorily resolving the crises they aim to address. To illustrate this dynamic, I put forward a schematic of possible alliances between three forces: labour, capital and nature (Figure 1). This schematic was developed in my thesis (Nitsche-Whitfield, 2022) and informed by the work of Brand and Wissen (2018) and Laurent and Pochet (2015: 15–27). With the aim of reducing exploitation, at least in the Global North, trade unions are currently in a dominant alliance with capital. This produces a ‘brown’, extractive form of capitalism. On the other hand, the dominant alliance of the environmentalist movement (nature) is focused on working with green capital. This produces a green capitalism that aims to reduce the impacts of extractivist practices. Hence, current alliances are organised around the focal point of capital, thereby bestowing even more power on capital. However, both coalitions with capital are leading to catastrophic consequences for labour and nature, albeit to different degrees, while a bottom-up alliance between labour and nature has the power to be truly transformative (Kalt, 2022: 4–5). Hence, this triangle is not to be read as a classic economic trilemma, as these are not equal options. The triangle is rather an explanatory tool highlighting the abstract choices that capital, labour and nature face. In the following I will characterise the positions of these three actors. Currently, trade unions are stuck in an uphill battle against organised capital that has reaped the fruits of decades of neoliberal globalisation and re-regulation in favour of the interests of financial 1126633 TRS0010.1177/10242589221126633TransferNitsche-Whitfield research-article2022\",\"PeriodicalId\":23253,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"383 - 387\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10242589221126633\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10242589221126633","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

欧洲当前的多重社会、生态和地缘政治危机显示出变革的迫切需要。这些危机的基础是资本积累制度,其重点是通过增加对劳动力的剥削和对自然的开采来产生利润,从而威胁到我们的生物圈并破坏我们的社会(Spash, 2021a)。正如最近的IPCC (2022a)报告所强调的那样,除非采取紧急行动,否则气候崩溃将给人类带来难以估量的痛苦。无论如何,生态极限正日益制约着人类活动,最近的极端天气事件就说明了这一点。在这种情况下,为了保持对经济增长的追求,采掘和开采将不得不变得更加极端。但这只会加剧以生活成本危机为代表的社会危机。正如IPCC (2022b: TS/99)所指出的那样,为了避免这种情况,有必要从“以GDP增长为导向的经济”转向“以低碳能源服务、福祉和公平为导向的经济”。一个“劳动-自然联盟”在实现这样的社会-生态转变中将是不可或缺的。本文将强调在当前情况下劳工性质联盟的潜力,并提供一份行动建议的简短清单。工会成员和生态学家并不总是意见一致。在所谓的“工作/环境困境”(Räthzel和Uzzell, 2011)的对立双方的各种历史斗争中,例如,在奥地利,与Zwentendorf核电站或水电站的冲突将成为多瑙-奥恩国家公园(Brand和Niedermoser, 2017: 34,36 - 39,134 - 135;Soder等,2018:529-530)。然而,与有组织的资本相比,有组织的劳工运动和生态运动本身都相对薄弱。在目前的社会环境下,两者很可能无法令人满意地解决它们旨在解决的危机。为了说明这一动态,我提出了三种力量之间可能的联盟示意图:劳动力、资本和自然(图1)。这一示意图是在我的论文(Nitsche-Whitfield, 2022)中发展起来的,并根据Brand和Wissen(2018)以及Laurent和Pochet(2015: 15-27)的工作提供了信息。为了减少剥削,至少在全球北方,工会目前处于与资本的主导联盟中。这就产生了一种“棕色”的、榨取式的资本主义。另一方面,环境保护运动(自然)的主导联盟专注于与绿色资本合作。这产生了一种绿色资本主义,旨在减少采掘行为的影响。因此,当前的联盟是围绕资本的焦点组织起来的,从而赋予资本更多的权力。然而,这两种与资本的联盟都导致了劳动力和自然的灾难性后果,尽管程度不同,而劳动力和自然之间自下而上的联盟具有真正变革的力量(Kalt, 2022: 4-5)。因此,这个三角关系不能被解读为经典的经济学三难困境,因为它们不是平等的选择。三角形更像是一个解释工具,突出了资本、劳动力和自然面临的抽象选择。在下文中,我将描述这三位演员的立场。目前,工会陷入了一场与有组织资本的艰苦斗争中,这些资本已经收获了几十年来新自由主义全球化和重新监管的成果,这些成果有利于金融利益
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A labour–nature alliance for a social-ecological transformation
Europe’s current multiple social, ecological and geopolitical crises reveal an urgent need for change. Underlying these crises is a capital accumulation regime focused on generating profits from increased exploitation of labour and extraction from nature, thus threatening our biosphere and undermining our society (Spash, 2021a). Unless urgent action is taken, climate breakdown will bring about a future of untold human suffering, as the recent IPCC (2022a) report underlined. In any case, ecological limits are increasingly constraining human activities, with dramatic consequences of the kind illustrated by recent extreme weather events. In order to maintain the pursuit of economic growth under these conditions, extraction and exploitation will have to become more extreme. But this will only exacerbate the social crisis epitomised by the cost-of-living crisis. In order to avoid this there is a need, as the IPCC (2022b: TS/99) argues, to shift from a ‘GDP growthoriented economy’ to a ‘low-carbon energy-services, well-being, and equity-oriented economy’. A ‘labour–nature alliance’ will be indispensable in enabling such a social-ecological transformation. This article will highlight potentials for a labour–nature alliance in the current circumstances and provide a brief list of recommendations for action. Trade unionists and ecologists have not always seen eye to eye. There have been various historical battles in which they were on opposing sides of the so-called ‘jobs/environment dilemma’ (Räthzel and Uzzell, 2011), for example, in Austria, with the conflicts over Zwentendorf nuclear power station or the hydropower plant in what would become Donau-Auen National Park (Brand and Niedermoser, 2017: 34, 36–39, 134–135; Soder et al., 2018: 529–530). Both organised labour and ecological movements are relatively weak on their own in comparison with organised capital, however. Under current social circumstances it is likely that both will fail in satisfactorily resolving the crises they aim to address. To illustrate this dynamic, I put forward a schematic of possible alliances between three forces: labour, capital and nature (Figure 1). This schematic was developed in my thesis (Nitsche-Whitfield, 2022) and informed by the work of Brand and Wissen (2018) and Laurent and Pochet (2015: 15–27). With the aim of reducing exploitation, at least in the Global North, trade unions are currently in a dominant alliance with capital. This produces a ‘brown’, extractive form of capitalism. On the other hand, the dominant alliance of the environmentalist movement (nature) is focused on working with green capital. This produces a green capitalism that aims to reduce the impacts of extractivist practices. Hence, current alliances are organised around the focal point of capital, thereby bestowing even more power on capital. However, both coalitions with capital are leading to catastrophic consequences for labour and nature, albeit to different degrees, while a bottom-up alliance between labour and nature has the power to be truly transformative (Kalt, 2022: 4–5). Hence, this triangle is not to be read as a classic economic trilemma, as these are not equal options. The triangle is rather an explanatory tool highlighting the abstract choices that capital, labour and nature face. In the following I will characterise the positions of these three actors. Currently, trade unions are stuck in an uphill battle against organised capital that has reaped the fruits of decades of neoliberal globalisation and re-regulation in favour of the interests of financial 1126633 TRS0010.1177/10242589221126633TransferNitsche-Whitfield research-article2022
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research
Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
7.10%
发文量
35
期刊最新文献
Governing neo-nationalism, trade unions and industrial relations: the cases of Hungary and Poland From a handful of activists towards an organising subculture: institutionalisation of transnational union organising in Central and Eastern Europe Round Table. Implementing the EU Directive on adequate minimum wages in the Low Countries: the case of the Netherlands Promoting employed worker status on digital platforms: how France’s labour inspection and social security agencies address ‘uberisation’ Internalising precariousness: experiences of Georgian platform workers
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1