Fwd: Carney is a real problem and there is an alternative: 'agonistic' notes for our times
Hugh Williams
Some may be interested in what follows ....
Hugh
| Subject: | Re: Carney is a real problem and there is an alternative: 'agonistic' notes for our times |
|---|---|
| Date: | Tue, 4 Aug 2026 17:41:30 -0300 |
| From: | Hugh Williams <hwil...@nbnet.nb.ca> |
| To: | Hugh & Stephanie Williams <hwil...@nbnet.nb.ca> |
A Conversation (in letters) with my biological brother (he told me I could share this with others) ....
to Tom (my brother and very worthy opponent) and to others ...
I intersperse my few comments and responses at ‘HW’ in the body of your text. It is clear that we are operating out of different horizons as we talk about this problem. Think of ‘horizon’ in terms of the different backgrounds of assumptions that can give different meanings to the things we are attending to in the foreground. Another way of thinking about it is in terms of our consciousness being informed by differing ideologies. (in many respects this is my area of work these days – fighting the good fight in this very real ideological struggle that is now reaching what are referred to as existential levels of import to win the 'hearts and minds' of the people ). I see you working within what I’d call a fairly mainstream liberal-capitalist horizon, like Carney, while I’m working within an eco-socialist horizon. Very different horizons for approaching this issue of what I’m calling out of my own horizon, the ‘climate catastrophe’. The relatively brief 'exercise in letters' here below hopefully raises the question 'to what extent can there be some ‘fusion of horizons?’. And to sort this out takes time, work, and extended conversations. There simply is no way around that.
However, I also realize that my own militancy and agonistic nature[1] make me, at least at times, a difficult and awkward dialogue-dialectical partner.
But with that said, ‘we’ must get down to work in the best way possible under our differing individual and collective circumstances …
See below …
Hugh
|
Subject: |
Re: Carney is a real problem and there is an alternative |
|
Date: |
Mon, 3 Aug 2026 18:21:59 -0300 |
|
From: |
Thom Williams <thomwill...@gmail.com> |
|
To: |
Hugh Williams <hwil...@nbnet.nb.ca> |
I do appreciate the argument positioned by the NDP - however, this is not a single solution challenge. It is multifaceted and still needs what the current government is proposing. And, it is not a position of one thing being better than another - but it does have to have a prioritized focus first to bring some semblance of control and order back into our picture.
HW: People do speak of a polycrisis these days. But this so-called ‘polycrisis’ can deflect attention away from what, in my horizon, is seen as the central cause – what is called capitalist accumulation in Marxist terms which has always been co-dependent upon the burning of fossil fuels – first coal (with British hegemony) and now oil (with U.S. hegemony). I’m arguing that we have to get some grip on what the best science has told us about this problem of increasing CO2 emissions and global temperature rises, and the risk of surpassing 'tipping points' where our social-economic system disrupts Earth System life support cycles making the planet increasingly uninhabitable for most of humanity and other species. The information on this has been available for some time but capitalist interests have worked very hard to hide, obscure, and obfuscate the issue and the necessary solutions. Having a grip on this central cause is essential for the proper ordering of priorities. There is a central assumption for the ‘Carney horizon’, that there will be technological fixes that will help us avoid and/or delay the consequences of our present course of action. This an ideology that has allowed us to make way too many compromises with the status quo. This I’m convinced is at worse a deliberate lie, and at best, an idolatrous self-deception supported by the ruling oligarchies and main stream media which plays a huge role in conditioning most people’s consciousness and outlooks. Clearly, we are in a revolutionary situation and the choice, as indicated powerfully by the Canadian wild fire situation, is ‘ecological ruin or ecological revolution’ which as I’ve said will need to be socialist (in Canadian terms - think 'cooperative principles' scaled up and actually adhered to …).
The fracture created by the US over Canada has been significant. While we cannot move forward totally ignoring they are still our largest trading partner, I believe Carney and team are doing what is necessary right now to realign our national focuses and priorities and creating the global connections that Canada's producers of all exporting manufactured goods and produce etc to bring some stabilization to the immediate situation.
HW: The problematic relations with the U.S., I’m now certain, are being weaponized by the supporters of the status quo to avoid implementing the revolutionary measures that are expressed in a relatively moderate manner by the NDP's New Green Deal – which reflects a real concern by Canadians for the consequences of climate change and the associated economic issue of affordability. This is a soft version of the eco-socialist case for the deeper interdependence, even interpenetration of economics and ecology. And this requires a serious wholistic or societal approach to governance that is nothing less than revolutionary. But there is a discernible and relatable order to the approach – government for the transitioning and wholistic governance required will need significantly increased revenues obtained by justifiable ‘wind-fall profit’ taxes on the energy corporations, financial institutions, and the digital cartel. This is necessary to aide in financing the renewable energy transition and development of sustainable jobs. Rather than investing in billion-dollar fighter jets, investment of 2% of our GDP in actively tackling climate change makes much more sense. There also must be a deliberate delinking from the U.S. economy while focusing on pan-Canadian trade relations and energy grids. There will be no more pipeline projects, offshore oil projects, or liquified natural gas terminals. Public ownership will be developed and employed when and where necessary. And perhaps even more so ... this is a moderate approach to the changes … but if required and necessary a more radical approach can be considered such as has been proposed in Europe – where the serious rift that has arisen between the interests of capital and our best science is now quite plain to see. And so many scientists, doctors, researchers and philosophers are conceptualizing for a climate emergency law that prohibits companies and enterprises from participating in any new fossil fuel project, coal mine, gas field, or oil well, and would abolish all subsidies for fossil fuels. This more radical approach may well be necessary even here in Canada. We cannot return now, because of the anthropogenic changes actually introduced over the course of our own life times for the most part (i.e. from the 1950s to date), to the world as it was before, but we do have a chance to live and still live well while caring for the Earth in all its beauty. But I’m afraid that now the evidence is compelling that nothing can be expected from capitalism and capitalist governments. The climate disaster confirms the need to break with this system and its particular capital accumulation logic. We do have to try and draw from the real suffering, grief, shock, and anger and loss experienced both within us and all around us and to draw the strength, determination, and creativity that is commensurate with the challenges and opportunities. Again, we are in a revolutionary situation that is calling us to rise up and unite to preserve the world’s habitability today and into the future ... and locally, to do so with Canadian characteristics.
The global issue regarding the environment is one that will require global response and shared ingenuity as well as financial commitments - on that there is no question. And the debate will go on but action must also happen while that debate continues. Here's a link on a very short clip you might want to hear - and YES I agree Carney has his faults and alignments with those he has history with (personal and or professional connections) - but I have come to the realization that - "who the hell doesn't". Therefore the obligation falls to each of us to continue to push the issue on decision in the best interest of the country as a whole - and not what is partisan expedient. We have that power by collectively working our messaging through federally elected officials and holding them to account directly. The biggest issue with this, is it takes work - YES work on our parts to demand and hold accountability. And unfortunately a large % of the population would prefer to leave it to others and then just complain about it.
Thom
[1] Agonistic – relates to aggressive or defensive social interaction behavior between individuals of the same species. It can aide in discerning the other as a ‘worthy opponent’ and thus be adaptively utilized as a preparation for cooperation.
Carney is a serious problem given the policy choice he has made and the special interests he represents -
and there is an alternative, not an easy one but a real one ...
if interested (and you should be) read these in succession -
https://socialistproject.ca/2026/08/climate-driven-wildfires-sweep-across-canada/#more
https://lewisisleader.ca/ideas/green-new-deal/apologies for being so blunt on this one ...
and if so disposed consider passing this along in your circle of influence
Hugh Williams