Are radical climate activists dangerous for democracy?

[noname223]

They are currently pretty busy trying to destroy art. I have already elaborated why this is counterproductive for their goals.

First of all I think there are way bigger threats for democracy than climate activists.
But if one is honest one has to admit also the left has here a problem with undemocratic attitudes.

I had this conversation with my lefty friends. And they are not very radical about climate change. But they basically fully affirmed the question: Do you think the fight against climate change is more important than democracy or democratic values?

I was kind of shocked. But I think this sentiment is pretty widespread. They argumented when the climate catastrophe won't be stopped there will be no countries etc to protect anyway. I think they feared the annihilation of human life on earth. At least the way we know it.
I have less fears about climate change maybe due to the notion I won't be alive in some decades anyway. I think the climate catastrophe could become disastrous. But here were people in this forum who contemplated suicide because of it. Personally I think we should rather wait how this all develops. We cannot predict the future.

I know there are models and calculations with convincing arguments. Though I believe there is for sure a certain uncertainty when we talk about the future.

The main problems with undemocratic climate activists are the following in my opinion: Many people think their undemocratic attitudes are less bad because they have an honorable goal. But in my opinion the ends do not justify the means in this case.

If I had to decide between implementing world wide dictatorships to prevent the climate crisis or let the catastrophe happen I would decide for the latter one. I see democracy as absolutely essential and extremely important. There are for me so many reasons for that. If we made an exception for the fight against climate change soon there would be other people to demand more exceptions for the alleged "right purpose".

One can say maybe democracy is too slow for the fight against climate change. This might be true. Though I think the alternative are even way worse. If we sacrifice democracy or democratic values this won't help to prevent the climate catastrophe. Probably quite the opposite.

But that is just my opinion.

 

[Chinaski]

But if one is honest one has to admit also the left has here a problem with undemocratic attitudes.

Extra-parliamentary political activity is democratic by definition and is usually the result of a systemic closing-off of access to mainstream, professional politics by the political class who operate within it. Democracy does not begin and end with a single vote every five years.

 

[noname223]

Extra-parliamentary political activity is democratic by definition and is usually the result of a systemic closing-off of access to mainstream, professional politics by the political class who operate within it. Democracy does not begin and end with a single vote every five years.

This has nothing do to with the attitudes of some activists and their relation to democratic values. If people say democratic procdures are less important than the fight against climate change this has nothing to do with extra-parliamentary political activity. The most extreme climate activist are even calling for a forced systemic change. (not legitimated by democratic elections)

 

[Chinaski]

If people say democratic procdures are less important than the fight against climate change this has nothing to do with extra-parliamentary political activity.

Yes it does, because politics and political activity isn't determined by what wealthy men in suits decide to let the general mob occasionally vote on. Progressive change is never handed down from above, it is always demanded from below, and so many things you take for granted today only exist because they were fought for. Banal statements like "the left has a problem with democracy" offer nothing and fail to question why the right tend to embrace "democracy" when condemning any activism that doesn't benefit them whilst simultaneously having the advantage of managing democracy. It's also ignorant to the things you and many others benefit from which have been similarly criticised when the argument for it was made, be that trade unionism, votes for women, civil rights campaigns etc. When the weekend comes and you've got Saturday off, remember that people once agitated for this and were condemned as a rowdy leftist rabble who were not respecting democracy.

 

[noname223]

Yes it does, because politics and political activity isn't determined by what wealthy men in suits decide to let the general mob occasionally vote on. Progressive change is never handed down from above, it is always demanded from below, and so many things you take for granted today only exist because they were fought for. Banal statements like "the left has a problem with democracy" offer nothing and fail to question why the right tend to embrace "democracy" when condemning any activism that doesn't benefit them whilst simultaneously having the advantage of managing democracy. It's also ignorant to the things you and many others benefit from which have been similarly criticised when the argument for it was made, be that trade unionism, votes for women, civil rights campaigns etc. When the weekend comes and you've got Saturday off, remember that people once agitated for this and were condemned as a rowdy leftist rabble who were not respecting democracy.

Not every activism is really beneficial. There were also leftwing extremists like the RAF terrorists in my country. One has to differentiate between acceptable and not acceptable measures (and attitudes).
I don't condemn "any activism that doesn't benefit them" instead I make a specific argument about their attitude towards democracy. Many of their protests are very good like the Fridays for future protests. I support that they pressure politicians to act on this important topic. But I want to emphasize that there has to a solution within the system and within the rules of democracy. And when people openly say we might have to sacrifice democratic values to save the planet I see it as problematic (as I pointed it out for the reasons above)

 

[Chinaski]

I think you can criticise individual campaigns and strategies without the sweeping "the left has a problem with democracy" guff tbh - but even then l too often find the criticisms of particular campaigns to often focus on the strategy as a means of ultimately diminishing the cause, it's long been the tactic of the liberal centre to attack extra-parliamentary campaigns as if they would be supportive had the activists only exhibited better table manners, the reality is they seek to crush it on behalf of the boss class whom they truly represent just as much as the right do.

 

[ph0enix]

"One can say maybe democracy is too slow for the fight against climate change. This might be true."

This speaks for itself. I think democracy as we know it now will be a thing of the past in 10-20 years. The only alternative would be a climate collapse.

 

[Maudlin]

People who hold fast to illusions, incapable of critiquing their illusions are always dangerous to society and its' structures.

As are those who sell illusions to the unsophisticated.