Conservancy is not a traditional option...

Mike Davis wrote an article about two years ago entitled “Home-Front Ecology” (which can be found here) in which he presents conservancy efforts in the World War II climate and its correlation with patriotic fervor. I had a few thoughts about this article and his identification of such efforts during the 1940s climate. Furthermore, I was initially enamored with the patriotic ideal associated with conservation and how this correlation could be drawn and applied in a contemporary political and economic climate. Unfortunately, I came to a hypothesis that indicated a much more dramatic shift in paradigm than the one that stimulated the desire to cut salaries, build and live in modest homes rather than glamorous ones, grow carrots and cabbage on the white house lawn, and make social concessions in order to promote economic sensibility.

One of the most explicit – ostensibly – contradictions of these initiatives was: 1) the idea of creating, at the very least, a socialist economy (definitely moving courageously towards communism) during World War II; 2) the correlation between patriotic fervor and the perpetuation of this socialist-communist state; and 3) the combination of the first two principles in order to more effectively combat communism. However, I believe that in order to reduce the impact of this contradiction, an ultimate goal antithetical to this type of economy needed to be in sight. That ultimate goal was the maintenance not only of "democracy," but, more importantly, of capitalism.

Generally, I was amazed at the level of capital sacrifice this country was willing to make in order to preserve "democracy" at home. This level of sacrifice largely surpassed textile and food conservation, but even led to Roosevelt's signing of XO 8802 (desegregating defense industrial plants) and eventually the desegregation of the armed services - both unprecedented in nature. Again, however, I believe that this sacrifice was only mandated insofar as it was economically sensible. I was curious in understanding why this same level of sacrifice is not being espoused contemporarily as it was during the "crisis" of the 1940s. I have come to the hypothesis that this is simply a matter of “sacrificial endurance” – that is, promulgating a political and economic policy through the temporary sacrifice of capital and resources. Responding to today’s crisis (crises), there would be no goal of a return to capitalist values and their application to democratic principles. Such principles would need to be redefined and capitalism abandoned, and many are unwilling to accept this inevitability. I am in no way concluding that the situation is hopeless, but certainly a reversion back to those ideals espoused during the World War II era would only extend the simple fact that our political and economic system is dying and cannot be resuscitated. I see this reversion in the AmeriCorps program and benefits extension, comparing revisionist initiatives to those similar to the G.I. Bill. The domestic incentives, though, after civil-service "troops" return from fighting on the home-front will not exist as they did in the mid to late-1940s. Industrial and vocational jobs will not be available, educational institutions will not be accessible, traditional domestic work will nowhere near be what it was and certainly not typified. The dramatic changes that seemingly need to occur are not being addressed, and it is rather troublesome.