Take the Profit Out of Global Warming and War, Nationalize the Oil Industry

Global Warming, the Biggest Threat to Humanity and Other Living Things

Take the Profit Out of Global Warming and War, Nationalize the Oil Industry

By STEVEN ARGUE

In Myanmar the death toll from a cyclone is, according to the Red Cross, between 69,000 and 128,000 people, with many more deaths possible from disease and starvation. Adding to the ferocity of the storm’s impact has been the fact that much of the mangrove habitat that had protected the Myanmar coast has been cleared. In addition, with strong parallels to Bush’s refusal to accept thousands of well trained and well equipped aid workers who would have saved lives in New Orleans, the repressive capitalist government of Myanmar has hindered the ability of international aid workers to do what needs to be done to save lives in Myanmar.

Last year, China had their worst cyclone in over 50 years. Around the world, warmer oceans are increasing the frequency and severity of hurricanes, cyclones, and typhoons. This is happening because the world’s warmer oceans feed more moisture into these tropical storms. As a result, computer models of global warming also project hurricanes in places that haven’t had them in known human history. One of these projections was that hurricanes would form in the South Atlantic. Fitting predictions, the first ever known South Atlantic hurricane made landfall on southern Brazil in 2004.

Last year Tokyo had a warm winter, with no snow cover for the first time in recorded history.

California is having the driest spring in 150 years, with regular water shortages in the long-term projections as a result of global warming. Already, on May 22, a wildfire started in the Santa Cruz Mountains, burning thousands of acres and destroying homes. That fire has yet to be contained. With wildfires starting this early, there is reason to fear this upcoming fire season in California.

The Santa Cruz area has a Mediterranean climate. These climates are characterized by winter rainy seasons and dry summers. Places with Mediterranean climates around the world are facing dryer weather with more wildfires. This is also happening in Greece and Australia. Forests and chaparral are burning up as habitats are changing and adjacent deserts are expanding.

The ice sheets in the arctic are disappearing at an ever increasing rate, and some of the latest predictions now project the potential of northern summer ice sheets completely disappearing within six years, bringing on the extinction of the polar bear and other species. As the white ice and snow disappears, dark ocean absorbs more of the sun’s heat, and escalates the rate of global warming even further.

In 2005 the Amazon River basin faced a drought never seen in recorded history. For the first time in recorded history a stretch of the Amazon River went completely dry in 2005, with causes attributed to a combination of less rainfall, smaller glaciers in the Andes (as a result of melting), and deforestation. Computer models predict that the rains that are necessary for the continued flow of the Amazon River will dry up due to the warmth of the Atlantic Ocean, causing moisture to fall directly as rain into the Atlantic rather than being blown inland. In addition to these projections saying that the Amazon River will dry up as a result of global warming, they also say that the Amazon rainforest will begin a regression first to grassland ending with the massive desertification of the Amazon Basin within the next one-hundred years. This, and other processes of desertification around the world, will, like rising oceans, cause starvation, massive refugee crisis’s, and also cause mass extinction of plant and animal species. Presently, the trees of the Amazon Forest remove greenhouse carbon from the atmosphere, but as climate changes and the forest disappears, this process will reverse itself, and the region will be adding carbon to the atmosphere.

Today, every national academy of science of the industrialized world recognizes human caused global warming as a fact. These include the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences who explicitly use the word "consensus" on the issue.

Yet there are a few voices who claim that human caused global warming is a myth. Among these is the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a foundation funded by ExxonMobile. Under pressure, ExxonMobile declared they would no longer fund such groups. Yet, a study of ExxonMobiles tax returns showed they were lying and that they were still funding 14 other similar groups. Among these is the organization “Frontiers for Freedom” who recently issued a report that was dedicated to attacking Al Gore and global warming science.

The problem of global warming is one that will, and is, devastating the planet’s environment, causing mass extinction of species while also destroying agricultural and habitable land through rising oceans, more severe hurricanes, droughts, more unpredictable weather, increases in tropical diseases, the slowing of ocean currents causing year round freezing weather with a potential ice age in the northern hemisphere combined with higher temperatures closer to the equator, and the potential of runaway global warming with the melting of the ocean’s methane hydride that could actually cause the extinction of the human species as well as most other species on the planet.

The United States is still the biggest contributor to global warming in the world. Per capita, China has much lower carbon emissions than the United States. Likewise, historically their output is also much less than the United States. No country outdoes the extreme per-capita output of US consumerism, nor do they outdo the historic US output, output which stays in the atmosphere for a long time and continues to contribute to global warming today.

China needs to deal with their pollution too, but their carbon footprint per person is much, much lower than the United States. In addition, the growing output in China is, to a large extent, being done by US corporations who have moved to China, so once again, US capitalists are largely to blame, even for Chinese carbon output. Yet, the Chinese Communist Party’s abandonment of socialism, and lack of true workers democracy under one party Stalinist rule, is also part of the problem.

Despite the severity of this problem and the key role the United States has played in creating it, the U.S. government and corporate leaders do worse than nothing, and have blocked and sabotaged all potential solutions for the past fifty years up until the present.

The United States needs an emergency program to dramatically lower carbon emissions. Without it we are doomed. Yet both ruling capitalist parties in the United States have been in the back pockets of big oil and coal, and have refused to do anything. A first step to save the planet and end imperialist wars, once the people gain power, will be the nationalization of the energy industries.

The first scientist to discuss global warming was Swedish Chemist Svante Arrhenius, a chemist who made many discoveries essential to modern chemistry, who in 1896 warned that a doubling of the world's atmospheric carbon dioxide would increase the world's temperatures by five to six degrees Celsius. With catastrophic implications, this is very close to current predictions. By 1957, scientists Roger Revelle and Hans Suess at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography in California put out the first warnings about human caused global warming that were taken seriously by the scientific community. Yet, despite this information being readily available for fifty years, the U.S. government and U.S. corporations failed to act in a favorable way at that time, and presently they continue to be an obstacle to action on global warming.

The current lack of action is due to the massive profits that continue to be made by the big oil corporations, and the political strength they have in being able to buy the politicians in Washington. Nothing short of nationalizing the oil industry, a move that would take corporate profit out of continued greenhouse gas emissions, will break this country from its suicidal drive towards profits at the price of the destruction of the entire planet. Yet the nationalization of oil will not take place within the current power structure of a nation ruled by two capitalist parties that are only elected through the support of massive contributions from the extremely wealthy and the backing of the corporate media. Although there will be a hard struggle ahead, only a revolutionary democratic socialist movement that comes from below can achieve the transformations of the power structure needed to nationalize oil and save the planet.

Today, the full extent of the problem of human caused global warming is the focus of considerable scientific research. World temperatures have already increased significantly and are rising at an alarming rate. As global temperatures have risen, ice shelves and glaciers in the Arctic, Antarctic, and mountains have been rapidly melting. So much ice has melted and dropped in the Ocean that the maps of Antarctica have had to be redrawn. In Greenland, it has been found that the increased layer of melted water between glaciers and the ground below is in fact greatly increasing the speed in which glaciers slide into the ocean.

All of this increased water in the world’s oceans is causing sea levels to rise. The Pacific island nation of Tuvalu is projected to be the first island nation to be completely submerged by global warming. Rising saltwater has already destroyed crop land and is contaminating their ground water. As a result, Tuvaluans now only drink rainwater and have to import a much greater portion of their food than they did in the past. The nation of 9,300 has already begun a program of evacuating 75 people per year from their islands, with 3,000 Tuvaluans already living overseas. Not only is Tuvalu taking the question of global warming seriously enough to begin evacuation of their islands, their tiny poor nation has decided to spend the $1.5 million per year necessary to be members of the United Nations in order to advocate world action against global warming. While what is happening to Tuvaluans is alarming, the coming elimination of Tuvalu from the planet is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the human and environmental crisis that will be caused by rising seas. As the trend continues, much of low lying nations such as Bangladesh and Vietnam are projected to be swallowed by rising waters, creating millions upon millions of refugees, and destroying some of the most productive crop land in the world, bringing with it a massive humanitarian crisis of refugees and starvation as well as the extinction of many species. In addition, low lying areas of the United States, such as Manhattan and Florida, will be submerged as well.

One disturbing theory regarding global warming makes the seemingly contradictory projection that global warming will trigger a new ice-age. Yet a large and growing body of scientific evidence does back this prediction. It is based on the fact that ocean currents in the Atlantic, including the Gulf Stream, are expected to disappear as a result of large amounts of fresh water melting and disrupting ocean currents. These currents move cold water from the north Atlantic south as well as warmer water north, mitigating what would be the extremes between both northern and southern climates. Twenty thousand years ago, at the height of the last ice-age, a reduction of ocean currents by two thirds drastically decreased the temperatures of the northern hemisphere and plunged much of North America and Europe into year-round winter. Already, measurements of ocean currents off of Greenland indicate that ocean currents there have decreased by 20%. The transformation of most of North America and Europe into frozen wasteland will, like rising oceans and desertification, cause mass starvation, a massive refugee crisis, and also cause mass extinction of plant and animal species.

Much of global warming is proceeding at even faster rates than original dire predictions, due to what are called positive feedback loops. These are phenomena that are caused by global warming on the one hand, and are accelerating global warming on the other. Among positive feedback loops is the melting of ice and snow. As more ice melts, warmth from the sun that was reflected back out of the atmosphere by light colored snow and ice; is more readily absorbed by newly exposed darker colored ground and ocean water. This is why the arctic is currently heating up at a much faster rate than anywhere else.

Carbon sinks, things that take global warming causing carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, are also being destroyed by global warming. Fossil fuels (when they aren’t burned) such as oil and coal are the ultimate carbon sinks, where prehistoric carbon was moved out of the atmosphere through photosynthesis and buried in the ground. Unfortunately, as these fuel sources are burned, their carbon is now being released back into the atmosphere. Some other important carbon sinks are forests and peat bogs, where these plants take carbon dioxide out of the air and convert it into sugars, carbohydrates, and cellulose. While direct human destruction of forests and peat bogs for lumber, fuel, and cropland is destroying these important carbon sinks, so too do phenomena such as global warming caused desertification.

Another important carbon sink, caught in a global warming related positive feedback loop, are the activities of the ocean’s forams, tiny organisms that, in their massive numbers, use up vast amounts of atmospheric carbon dioxide as it passes freely between the atmosphere and the oceans. When forams die, much of the carbon they’ve converted drops with their shells to the bottom of the ocean. Yet, this process is now being interrupted by the increased acidity of the oceans caused by the increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and oceans. Forams are unable to function properly under these conditions of higher acidity and are thus removing less carbon from the atmosphere.

So a number of causes have been identified where increased carbon dioxide and increased global warming cause even more atmospheric carbon dioxide and more global warming. In addition, the most dire predictions dealing with positive feedback mechanisms is the melting of methane hydride on the bottoms of the world’s oceans. As the oceans heat up, the melting of this material will release methane gas into the atmosphere. Methane is a greenhouse gas that is even worse than carbon dioxide. A leading theory on the cause of the Permian extinction 251 million years ago, an extinction episode that killed off 95 percent of all species on earth, is that the extinction episode was first triggered by carbon dioxide spewed into the atmosphere by Siberian volcanoes for an extended period of time that led to global warming that reached temperatures high enough to melt methane hydride on the bottom of the oceans.

The combination of high carbon dioxide and methane gas concentrations in the atmosphere then dramatically increased the temperatures of the oceans, causing them to become anoxic. The oceans became anoxic because as water gets warmer it holds less oxygen. In addition, warmer ocean waters circulate less, moving less oxygenated water from the ocean’s surface deeper into the ocean.

Anoxic waters no longer support most advanced plants and animals, but they do support a number of species of bacteria that are adapted to such conditions. These bacteria include species that produce hydrogen sulfide as a waste product of their metabolism. Hydrogen sulfide is poisonous to humans and other organisms dependent on oxygen. It is thought that large amounts of hydrogen sulfide from the world’s heated anoxic oceans entered the atmosphere and killed off almost all life on land during the Permian Extinction. Human caused global warming today, if it is not stopped, may well set in motion the same series of events, and wipe out most species on earth, including the human race.

As U.N. secretary-general Ban told delegates at the December 2007 U.N. climate conference in Bali, "We are at a crossroad, one path leads to a comprehensive climate change agreement, the other to oblivion. The choice is clear." Yet despite a willingness on the part of a number of nations to take some action, and despite overwhelming scientific evidence, the United States, the worst polluter of gasses causing global warming in the world, refuses to sign on to international agreements limiting greenhouse gas emissions. While most environmentalists agree that these Kyoto protocols are not enough, the United States signing on to them would at least be a step in the right direction. If the United States continues to do nothing in regards to global warming except participate in denial while spewing the worst per-capita carbon emissions in the world, the human and environmental catastrophe of global warming will become much worse, and human extinction becomes more and more likely.

In advocating something be done, American environmentalists often point to many individual things people can do to slow one’s personal impact on global warming. These include driving less and generally using combustion engines less, recycling, becoming a vegetarian or vegan, consuming less, using solar or wind energy, planting trees, avoiding cutting down trees, and saving forests and peat bogs. All of these things are positive in reducing greenhouse gasses, and should be encouraged, but without the problem being tackled on a wider societal level, such individual actions amount to a mere drop in the bucket as petroleum and auto-industries sabotage wider solutions, and millionaires like Arnold Swartzenegger try to make up for what they apparently lack in their pants by driving around with his fleet of eight gas-guzzling hummers.

One wider societal solution would be converting the United States to electric cars, and making them more efficient with hybrid technology while also cleaning up the grid by converting more power sources to solar and wind generated power. This should be combined with providing much greater subsidies to mass transportation. Yet, the oil industry and other major corporations of the United States, along with their subservient politicians in both the Democrat and Republican Parties, have blocked every major step towards this kind of progress over the last 50 years.

As Alexandra Paul from Bay Watch stated in a PBS interview, “[…] power as in ‘the power structure’ is why we are still using gas in cars.” In the interview she described how GM decided not to re-lease her electric car, nor any other that they had leased out, and instead took all of these working cars back from their customers in 2002 and crushed them. Toyota also took similar actions destroying their electric vehicles in California at the same time. The only reason these companies ever produced and leased these cars was that they were forced to do so by a California law passed in the 1990’s. The law was inspired by the fact that cities like Los Angeles are over-polluted, largely due to combustion engines, and electric cars with energy coming from power plants produce fewer smog and greenhouse gas pollutants. Yet, when these companies were no longer legally forced to put out electric cars in order to do business in California, they stopped doing so and destroyed the ones they had already produced. When electric cars were on the market, they were available only for lease except a few that Toyota agreed to sell under public pressure. So, when the car manufacturers were no longer forced to have their popular electric cars out on the market, they not only stopped producing them, they took back the ones that were actively being leased and destroyed them.

The auto manufacturers claim that these cars were unpopular, and that is why they stopped producing them as soon as they could. Yet, when the cars were being leased there were waiting lists for the cars that were longer than what was available. The various manufacturers, in taking these vehicles off the road and destroying them, did so in order to destroy their very example as an alternative. This lets us in on a very important secret. Through their hostile actions against the electric car they have informed us that they are wed to the interests of the oil companies. This could be, in part, due to the fact that the planned obsolescence of cars with combustion engines is harder to engineer into electric cars. So these cars apparently didn’t break down enough to promote auto sales and auto parts sales. So the auto industry is involved in what amounts to, in terms of ethics, a criminal conspiracy to rip-off consumers and destroy the future of this planet in order to achieve short-term profits.

Just as capitalist ownership is blocking the production of electric cars, so to does capitalist energy ownership block the development and production of wide-scale wind and solar energy. As Monica Hill stated in the Freedom Socialist Newspaper:

“[...] it takes a great deal more labor and energy to harness wind and solar power, at present, than to extract oil. Oil men are clear on the subject. "Renewable energy," said former Exxon Mobil CEO Lee Raymond in the British newspaper Economist, is "a complete waste of money." When Raymond retired last December, Exxon Mobil reported profits of $36.1 billion — the largest in U.S. history. Raymond personally raked in $400 million that year. Clearly, when wind and solar power finally get developed, it won't be thanks to capitalist industry. There is no solution for skyrocketing consumer costs and plunging planetary health as long as control of the energy industry remains in the hands of the monster oil industry and its kindred financial and industrial monopolies.”

With the production of wind and solar, once again, capitalist ownership and capitalist profits are the barriers to the steps needed to save the planet.

Just as big oil profits from the destruction of the planet, they are also a major influence in the drive for war against countries that have eliminated private ownership of oil wealth. U.S. intervention against the popular democratic governments of Venezuela and Bolivia is increasing because these countries have nationalized their energy industries and are using oil profits for things such as education and healthcare, instead of that money going directly into the pockets of multi-national oil corporations. Similarly, oil was nationalized under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein and oil revenues were used, in part, to benefit the Iraqi people. Now, under a U.S. imposed puppet government in Iraq, there have been attempts to privatize Iraqi oil fields, but resistance from Iraqi workers has so far prevented it. Once again, the drive for higher corporate oil profits is a destructive force for the world’s people and environment.

While the United States government has no right to intervene in other countries to tell them what to do with their own resources, especially when those countries are making better use of resources than would be done in the hands of U.S. and British oil companies, the U.S. also has no right to destroy the entire planet for the profits of a few oil companies. This, combined with the overwhelming corrupting power big oil has on U.S. politics leads one who is interested in the future of this planet to one inevitable conclusion. The oil industries of the United States need to be nationalized under the democratic control of the people.

While taking the profit out of war and environmental destruction through the nationalization of oil and other energy industries may sound logical to most people, inevitable questions naturally arise in people’s minds.

A common myth promoted by those who have profits to gain through private ownership is that private ownership is more efficient. Yet an honest look shows public ownership is always better. A good example is socialized medicine in Europe, which is much cheaper and better than American healthcare, resulting in giving countries like France, Germany, and the United Kingdom longer life expectancies and lower infant mortalities than the United States. Ending capitalist profit, a form of theft to line the pockets of the wealthy in the first place, is just plain more efficient.

Even public ownership of energy, on a small scale, isn’t without precedent in the United States. Electricity in Los Angeles is publicly owned. Because it is publicly owned, money isn’t being siphoned away in the form of profits going to shareholders and CEO’s. In addition, the bottom line is not the profits of shareholders and CEO’s. As a result, electricity is provided at rates much cheaper than in the rest of California, and it is done in a more environmentally friendly way. In fact, since electricity is publicly owned, people in LA were able to put an initiative on the ballot to shut down their nuclear power plants. The measure succeeded, and people in LA, while they are still forced to pay for the nuclear plants that were constructed and shut down, they still pay less for electricity due to the superior efficiency of ending corporate profit through public ownership.

In the United States, public ownership of the oil industry would not only take away profit incentives for war and environmental destruction, but money made from such enterprises could go towards human and environmental needs such as saving the environment, and towards healthcare and education, as nationalized oil money is used in Venezuela.

Yet Venezuela is also facing a crisis, both because the United States is hostile to what the revolutionary Chavez government is doing there with oil money, but also because there are still capitalists that control much of the Venezuelan economy. Through that control they are able to sabotage other sectors of the economy in their attempts to overthrow the Chavez government. Capitalist interference in food distribution has been one of the most recent acts of sabotage, where capitalists have had food stuffs that they were refusing to put on the shelves for sale. How Chavez deals with this, and other capitalist sabotage of the economy, will determine whether or not the Venezuelan Revolution survives.

Immediately after the Cuban Revolution, Castro and the rest of the Cuban revolutionary leadership was tested in a similar way. The first nationalizations by the Cuban revolutionary leadership were in agriculture. Before the revolution, under the U.S. backed Batista dictatorship, much of the Cuban land was owned by the American capitalist Rockefeller family through the United Fruit Company. Peasants worked for low wages on this land during the on season, and starved during the off-season. Immediately, upon taking power, the Castro government carried out their promise of land reform and United Fruit Company land was expropriated. Resources from sugar production were no longer used to only enrich the Rockefeller family, but instead used to bring food, education, and medicine to peasants and their children. Yet, the United States and American capitalists never forgave this intrusion on capitalist property, and American capitalists sabotaged production in other sectors of the economy, including by refusing to refine oil. In response, the Castro government nationalized the entire economy and announced the building of a socialist economy in Cuba.

This necessity of socialist revolutions to carry out sweeping nationalizations in order to stop capitalist sabotage of the economy was first recognized in 1905 by Leon Trotsky in his work “Results and Prospects” and later developed further in “The Permanent Revolution”.

It is through the Cuban nationalization of the entire economy that the Cuban revolution has not only been able to survive, but they have been able to implement socialist energy policies that are not based on profit, but are instead based on human and environmental needs. While Cuban socialized medicine has brought about a medical system that has produced a higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality than the United States, Cuba’s planned economy has also benefited the environment. It is as result of those policies and priorities that the World Wildlife Fund has said that Cuba is the only country with passing environmental policies in the world. Yet, those policies on one tiny island nation will not be enough to save the planet. As Fidel Castro stated at the U.N. in Rio in 1992:

“An important biological species is in danger of disappearing due to the fast and progressive destruction of its natural living conditions: mankind. We have now become aware of this problem when it is almost too late to stop it. It is necessary to point out that consumer societies are fundamentally responsible for the brutal destruction of the environment.”

Here, Castro is right, and Cuba does serve as a model. Yet, when we look at the Cuban model of socialism, we must pick and choose what aspects are healthy and which aspects should not be copied by other socialist revolutions.

While the Cuban socialism has achieved much, one key ingredient for a healthy society is missing. That ingredient is democracy. A similar observation was made of the Soviet Union in 1918 by German socialist leader Rosa Luxemburg. While being supportive of the Russian revolution, she was at the same time opposed to the dictatorial methods of the leadership of Lenin and Trotsky in the Soviet Union. Rosa Luxemburg instead advocated revolutionary democratic socialism.

The Bolsheviks, under the leadership of Lenin and Trotsky, were swept to power in a popular revolution that called for an end to the war with Germany, land reform, and socialism. Besides the betterment this revolution meant for the workers and peasants in general, including access to healthcare and education, giant strides forward were made for oppressed nationalities, Jews, women's rights, and gay rights. Before the revolution, under Czarist rule, Jews were routinely slaughtered in the thousands in government-sponsored pogroms. Peasants were the property of feudal landlords, and huge numbers of drafted young peasants were dying in the inter-imperialist war with Germany. This all ended with the Russian Revolution. In addition, gay rights and the right to abortion were legalized for the first time in any country with the birth of the Soviet Union and backward anti-woman practices such as bride-price and forced marriage were made illegal. Priorities were made of literacy and meeting the basic needs of the people. These were huge advances made by a revolution that had inherited a poor economically backward nation, soon to be further devastated by civil war and the invasion of many imperialist armies.

Yet, Rosa Luxemburg, while praising the advances made by the Russian Revolution, did not excuse the lack of democracy in the Soviet Union. She saw the Marxist concept of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" in a completely different way than Lenin and Trotsky. She saw this simply as the toiling majority becoming the dictators over the capitalist minority that once held power. For that majority to actually be in charge, however, they would need democratic organs, universal suffrage, and democratic rights. For Lenin and Trotsky, the concept of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" fit more into bourgeois models of individual dictatorship by those in power. As Rosa Luxemburg states in her 1918 work, the “Russian Revolution”:

“Without general elections, without unrestricted freedom of press and assembly, without a free struggle of opinion, life dies out in every institution, becomes a mere semblance of life, in which only a bureaucracy remains as the active element. Public life gradually falls asleep, a few dozen party leaders with inexhaustible energy and boundless experience direct and rule [...] a dictatorship, to be sure, but not dictatorship of the proletariat [...].”

A different position by Lenin and Trotsky, more in league with that of Rosa Luxemburg, could have produced a much better and more open society that would have made Stalin's type of rise to power through skullduggery, corruption, and terror within the ranks of the party much more difficult.

Rosa Luxemburg did not see this question as being counterpoised between bourgeois democracy (democracy for the rich as we have in the United States) on the one hand (defended by fake "socialists" who had betrayed socialism and become administrators of capitalist exploitation and war), and dictatorial communism on the other. Instead, she rejected both and fought for a socialist society with nationalized industries where the working class has democratic control. It is this essential banner of revolutionary democratic socialism that must be fully revived in order to not repeat the mistakes of the past, and in order for people to take our movements for environmental survival and socialism seriously and want any part in them.

It was a very unfortunate error of history that the first socialist revolution was carried out with the anti-democratic errors of Lenin and Trotsky. Stalin amplified those errors for his own personal gain. Due to the influence of the Russian Revolution, both morally and financially, the undemocratic errors of the Russian Revolution were copied by most socialist revolutions after, including the Cuban revolution. While recognizing the advantages of the Cuban socialist model over U.S. imposed dictatorship and a corporate controlled economy, it is important not to repeat their undemocratic errors.

Yet, there is nothing inherently democratic about a private economy. As was shown in the example of publicly owned power in LA, with the ability of the people to shut down unsafe nuclear power plants, public ownership is more democratic than private ownership. Private ownership allows a few extremely wealthy people to control not only industrial policies where public input and control is essential for a healthy environment, but their private control of vast financial resources also gives them control of the two established political parties in the United States. Public ownership on a wider scale, with a broadly socialized economy, tied to full democratic rights and universal suffrage, will allow the United States to become a much more democratic country than it is today, and will allow the people of this country to begin the measures needed to save the planet.

Yet, while all of this may seem reasonable, it does beg the question, “How do you propose to gain such a far reaching goal in a country that has an entrenched power structure that is more engaged in privatization than nationalization?” This is the hardest question. It will take the organization of a revolutionary party firmly committed to these goals that is not interested in compromise with the current power establishment. The goal of such a party must be for power, but history has also shown that such parties and movements can become powerful enough at times to scare the power structure into making some of the needed reforms. Even relatively small parties that stick to radical convictions that seem to be on the very fringes can, in times of discontent and sudden revolutionary turmoil, become the majority. As issues worsen in the United States around war, environmental destruction, lack of healthcare, and a possible coming economic collapse, the possibilities of a sea-change in the relatively passive U.S. population becomes more and more likely.

It is with these understandings that the first steps are being taken to establish the Cool Earth Party on the principles of revolutionary democratic socialism, which includes the following demands:

1. Immediate action to save the planet by cutting greenhouse gas emissions!
2. Nationalize the Oil Industry, Other Energy Industries, and the Auto Industry!
3. U.S. Troops Out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Colombia, and the Philippines!
4. End US Military Aid to Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Colombia, and All Other Oppressive Governments in the World!
5. End US Imperialism!
6. For Socialized Medicine!
7. No to Racism, Sexism, and Homophobia!
8. For proportional democracy with guaranteed equal time for parties in the media, outlaw big campaign spending, and outlaw electronic voting machines (which are presently used to rig American elections).
9. For Class Struggle Methods to Achieve these Goals, Including Strikes, Mass Protests, Alternative Media, Acts of Conscience and Rebellion Within the US Military, and the Building of a Revolutionary Democratic Socialist Party.
10. Towards Revolutionary Democratic Socialism in the United States!

Such a party will necessarily start small. But, I think, time will tell that such an organization is not only essential for the survival of the planet, it is also an idea that can become popular quickly because it is an idea whose time has come.

Join the Cool Earth Party
http://tribes.tribe.net/coolearth

This is an Article of Liberation News, Subscribe Free:
https://lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news