The views published here are of an ecosocialist nature and from the broad red, green and black political spectrum. The opinions expressed are the personal opinions of the writers and are not necessarily the view of any political parties or groupings that they belong to. Please feel free to comment on the posts here. If you would like to contact us directly, you can email us at firstname.lastname@example.org. Follow the blog on Twitter @MikeShaugh
Written by Robin
McAlpine and first published at Source
News and Analysis from Common Weal
CRITICISM of the Left is that it manages to be correct on high-level principles
but bad at actually fighting the fight. As chatter about ‘afterwards’ grows and
grows, it is even more important to focus. The future is either a Green New
Deal or a Green Deal. They’re opposites and lead in opposite directions. We
have to choose.
for those who want fairness is first to understand the difference, and second,
to fight for the one that delivers it. This is especially critical in Scotland.
So I’m begging
you – don’t be fooled. Get informed and get angry.
What is a Green
I won’t go into
the history of the Green New Deal because
there is loads written about it. But basically after the 2008 financial
crisis a small group of London-based left economists tried to describe how
financial, economic, environmental and social problems can be tackled in an
The concept of
Green New Deal has suffered a bit from that left problemof failing really to get
beyond principles. I mean, I don’t disagree with them in the slightest, but
without more detail they can be (and are) distorted into something else.
the purpose of a Green New Deal is to accept that the environment requires the
economy to change, and so that change must be done in a way that creates
greater fairness and reduces the social harm of free market economics while
restructuring the economy so that it can’t return to the practices which did
the social and environmental harm in the first place.
It contains a
degree of cynicism – because, as we will see, it is quite possible to save the
environment and still create an appalling social dystopia. You can save the
environment without saving people. So the Green New Deal welds them together.
characteristic of a Green New Deal is that it is about economic and social
justice and not just environmental justice.
Again, the lack
of detail in most conversations about Green New Deals means how exactly this is
to be done is either hard to derive or is a confusing series of options. But it
should basically work by ensuring collective and democratic ownership of the
sectors which are key to environmental harm (like energy) and making major
public intervention in others (like housing).
Then, you use
the interventions to achieve economic and social change. House-building can
create different kinds of jobs, energy can include manufacturing which creates
different kinds of jobs. Attached to ideas like job guarantees and greater
regulation, we create a more equal and better society.
That can range
from the modest (a kind of revival of the post-war Keynesian approach to
development) to the radical (a form of ecosocialism). But even the modest end
expects big change to come from the transition.
That’s a Green
So what is a
A Green Deal is
why high-level principles are such a problem. Looking at the rising demand for
environmental action from the public (and especially from a younger
generation), the people who are behind both climate damage and social failure
(i.e. the big corporations) tried to work out how to defuse the situation.
So what they
did was come up with a system for taking the ‘New’ out of a ‘Green New Deal’ –
which of course they then did literally. Doing
this was remarkably easy.
All they had to
do was claim completely to support the climate change objectives but decouple
the environmental element from the social and economic elements. Their vision
is Amazon and Facebook and BP still ruling the world as a low-wage hell-hole –
but with renewable energy.
In fact there
is a good reason that Green Dealers obsess over carbon; it disguises the real
problem. It disguises the fact that the global economy is systematically
fucking all the environmental systems on which life on earth rely.
Where a Green
New Deal works largely because of the mixture of labour and environmental
regulation with direct government intervention and a different economic
ownership pattern, a Green Deal drops the regulation part, most of the direct
government intervention part and all of the economic ownership part.
It is based
around ‘incentivising investment’. Green Deals are highly neoliberal and see
giant and powerful investment managers, soil-destroying agrobusinesses, Big
Oil, plastic polluters and strip-mining companies not as the problem but the
because Green Dealers are so ideologically bound to the financial sector they
have been trying to work out how to make sure that its dominant role continues.
There is a strong argument that these investment funds have
done more environmental damage than any other entity in history (they
basically own all the oil businesses).
And yet the
theory of a Green Deal is that if only you can properly ‘incentivise’ these
investment funds to stop investing in the wrong things and start investing in
the right things, the problem will fix itself.
It won’t – and
even if it did, it will simply make worse all the other social and economic
failures of the world economy. But it green-washes some of the worst players in
environmental destruction and guarantees them control of the world economy for
another 30 years.
If you scratch
just beneath the surface of this neoliberal fantasy it starts to fall apart – I
mean, in this free market model with its low regulation but high
‘incentivisation’ (give public money to the already rich), who is actually
paying to install your new heating system? Because it’s going to cost you £20k.
It’s a con designed to ‘sound Greta, act Trump’.
You can tell a
Green Deal in a second. It involves setting targets, declaring ‘climate
emergencies’ and making theatrical speeches about how much you love trees. But
there is no identifiable action and when asked what is actually being done
there is a lot of talk of ‘investment opportunities’. That just means yet more
Where is this
At a global
level, there is no battle. That’s because for all the rhetoric of globalization
about building a better world through multilateral cooperation, at the
multinational level only the super-rich get to play. In the late 1990s, the
World Social Forum was created to try and balance the power of Davos. Let’s
just say Davos won. There is no serious global campaign for a Green New Deal.
For the US, the
battle has already been lost. Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren were the only
real chance; Biden is anti-Green New Deal. In the world’s most powerful
economy, the battle is between subterfuge and total denial.
In Europe, we
get to the heart of the problem – it is here that ‘Green Deal’ was invented. There is much more social democracy in Europe, so there is much more pressure
for a proper Green New Deal.
as it is for left-minded Europhiles to admit it, the EU is a powerless
parliament stuck onto a much more powerful committee of European governments –
and they’re all right-wing Tories just now. It is they who originated the
concept of Green Deal. It is the official EU policy.
I mean, have
a look at ‘Renovation Wave’, the EU’s plan for tackling carbon emissions
from the housing sector. See if you can work out who is paying the many
billions this will cost. Then note how easy it is to see who’s pocket the money
will end up in.
mad. Proposing that a single street might have each of its houses properly
retrofitted individually over say 15 years makes sense only to a free market
evangelist. It is the definition of wasteful inefficiency and an open
invitation to poor quality work. Unless there is a change (and a substantial
one) in the EU, there isn’t a battle for a Green New Deal there. That happened
and the Green New Deal lost.
At a UK level,
I think we can safely say that a Green New Deal is off the table for the next
five years. Beyond that the lead time to get one started is (conservatively)
three or four years. Even a Starmer government in 2026 would mean no progress
in the UK in this decade – and god knows where we’ll be by then.
So that means
that, if you care in the slightest about a Green New Deal, your options start
and end with Scotland. It’s not just that we’re exceptionally well placed to
deliver one because of our outstanding natural resources, it’s that it would be
easy to generate public support for it. So what are Scotland’s options?
a choice must be made
As I have
already pointed out, Green New Deals remain a bit vague. This is a mistake; in
the end they are a reform programme wrapped round a big engineering project. To
get to the reform bit you need to understand the engineering bit.
frustration, Common Weal undertook an enormous project next year to put the
detail into a Green New Deal for Scotland. First, we committed ourselves to
tackling not only climate change but all seven major environmental threats to
the world. We committed not to ‘reducing’ our negative impact but taking it to
zero. And we said ‘impact anywhere – not just in Scotland’ – so no dumping on
the global south.
Then, we broke
it down into major areas for action (buildings, heating, electricity, transport,
food, land, resources and so on). Then we worked with experts to establish how,
technically, it could be achieved. We then costed that and structured the
spending in a way that achieved all the social goals of a Green New Deal.
We published it
in November as the
Common Home Plan. It is a comprehensive, costed, detailed plan for a
Scottish Green New Deal. It is realistic and achievable and specific. You know
exactly what you’ll get.
option on the table is the Scottish Government’s Green Deal. This has been
heavily influenced by ‘Charlotte Street thinking’, the perpetual dominance of
Edinburgh wealth managers on government policy. It involves the usual
eco-theatre (‘climate emergency’ announcements, target-setting) but only one
It is at the
‘call for projects’ stage where corporations come forward and say ‘if you give
us money and the rights to your wind/land, we’ll take all that pesky
energy/housing transition off your hands’. Which is a way of describing a £3
billion sell-off of Scotland’s renewable assets.
Or, to put it
another way, this is the privatisation of all of Scotland’s most valuable
resources – in perpetuity. It will simply repeat the same mistakes made during
the oil boom of a massive public resource being handed to the already rich.
This will give
pocket change to the Scottish Government to sprinkle initiatives around the
country which will look like something is happening. But I call £3 billion
pocket change because when the cost of a proper Green New Deal is more like
£170 billion, it is.
There is no
economic or social reform package attached to this , no plan for how any of the
engineering supply chain will be captured by Scotland – more hand-wringing no
doubt. The rich get richer, the rest of us have to spend our own money on their
electricity generated by our natural resources.
And there is no
way to block this in the Scottish Parliament because no-one in the SNP ranks
ever rebels and so they’ll simply form yet another SNP/Tory coalition to push
This is a
choice to be made, not a compromise to be struck
independence movement has been so broken by the last six years that people with
‘Bairns Not Bombs’ stickers still on their cars are asking me if there is any
way we can ‘synthesise’ the Common Home Plan with the Scottish Government’s
No there isn’t.
If the Scottish Government sells off Scotland’s remaining natural assets and
all transition activity is in the corporate sector, the finances of the Common
Home Plan (or any Green New Deal for Scotland) become impossible. Our plan is
based on doing this collectively and through an industrial strategy which
captures the economy gain of the transition for everyone.
We can finance
£170 billion of spending because, doing it our way, it generates more tax
revenue from expanded economic activity than it costs to finance the spending.
But if the public hands over the source of that economic activity to foreign
multinationals, it’s all over.
No matter how
much pleading a future government does, the source of Scotland’s future
prosperity will be privately owned by overseas multinationals and investment
funds. The only option would then be to renationalise it, which is just
enormous amounts of completely unnecessary spend which screw up the finance
model leaving us trapped.
My current fear
is that, given
the alarming(indeed unacceptable) nature of the advisory group set up
by the First Minister to produce a recovery plan, I very much fear that this
renewables fire-sale might be kicking off over the summer. If you hear ‘green
investment’, be very worried.
Right now, I
have no further advice for you other than to be informed. With democracy in the
SNP eroded and currently suspended altogether, with the media we have, with
physical distancing rules preventing protest and with the option of an SNP/Tory
coalition to get this through Holyrood, the virus has created an opportunity to
strip Scotland of its future at its most vulnerable moment.
Right now I
can’t tell you how to stop this. But I can beg you not to be fooled, and if
you’re in the SNP and you care about these things, I urge you to think hard
about means of challenging this which I can’t think of.
This is our
collective future. If it is handed to the rich under cover of virus recovery,
fury must follow.
pandemic has already been a real tragedy for tens of thousands of UK
individuals and their families. And, as information slowly emerges, it is
clearly very much a neoliberal tragedy.
successive Tory governments - & the Tory-LibDem coalition - have
deliberately underfunded our NHS, both as part of their austerity, and as steps
to weaken it for further stealth privatisation. And, even though ‘Exercise
Cygnus’ in 2016 showed just how unprepared our NHS was for a huge pandemic -
which was seen as a much greater threat to UK citizens than terrorism - May and
Johnson both ignored requests to increase the number of Intensive Care Unit
beds and to replenish stocks of in-date Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).
Johnson and his government have repeatedly lied about having sufficient - and
safe - stocks of PPE for frontline health and social care workers; and have
failed to introduce, as constantly urged to do so by the World Health Organisation,
a ‘Test, Trace and Isolate’ strategy. All these deliberate failures to act in
the right ways, at the right times, have resulted in the UK having the highest
number of deaths in Europe, and the second highest in the world.
Thus it will
now be much harder for the supporters of, and the apologists for, the
neoliberal system to argue that the UK was, pre-Covid-19, an exemplar of social
care and economic equality. Consequently, in some ways, this tragic crisis is
also an opportunity for change, as it will be much easier to make the case that
the pre-Covid system essentially best-served the interests of the 1% alone.
However, a word
of warning: it is not just an opportunity for radical progressives to push for
fundamental changes to this failing and grossly-unequal system - it will also
be an opportunity, in the immediate aftermath, for those on the other side of
the barricades to push forward with their agenda.
And this is an
opportunity they are already planning to take advantage of: hence recent
comments, from various right-wing quarters, about the need to impose pay freezes
on public sector employees; to “set aside” the National Minimum Wage and
“restrictive” legislation regarding employee and environmental protections; and
the need for more austerity to re-coup the costs of this pandemic.
For those who
doubt that the ‘other side’ will act in this way post-lockdown, try reading Naomi
Klein’s 2014 book about what she calls ‘Disaster Capitalism’:
Naomi Klein, The
Shock Doctrine, 2014
spread across the world of this Coronavirus has underlined once more, in a very
deadly way, just how such crises have important global causes, dimensions and
impacts - in a similar but more graphic way than the 2008 banking crisis did.
In the same
way, this pandemic has also shown the importance of global solutions - and, for
those who have not forgotten the ever-worsening twin crises of global warming
and biodiversity loss, it is even more clear now how, ultimately, such crises
will only be fully solved on a global, international, basis. As Brexit looms, a
useful starting platform would be that of Europe.
George Orwell, in the
journal Partisan Review, July-August 1947
recognised that fascism and Nazi Germany would not truly be defeated by
military means alone - he also argued that there needed to be fundamental
economic and social reforms to end the inequalities and injustices of pre-war
Europe. As History confirms, in 1945,
the majority of voters in the UK and elsewhere saw the end of the war as an
opportunity to transform their societies into various types of welfare
capitalism - a state of affairs that lasted till the end of the 1970s, when
neoliberalism began to roll back those gains.
The idea of a Socialist
United States of Europe was first raised, as early as September 1914, by Leon
Trotsky, in his The War and the
International, at the start of WW1. That call was made in the belief that, after
the end of the war, it would be necessary to make a clean break with the old
order’s ‘business as usual’ that had led to the horrors of war; and to move the
whole of Europe on to a new and better future.
If we are to
turn this pandemic into a positive, then it is vital that the current crisis is
seen as an opportunity, in some ways comparable to those presented by the two
world wars of the last century.
Even more than the
2008 banking crisis, Covid-19 is sapping the foundations of the rotten
neoliberal ‘order’ - not just financially, but also politically, with many now
seeing the glimpse of a better way of doing things. And that creating another,
better, world IS possible - if the political will is there. Some shapes of this
better world which have emerged in the lockdown - such as cleaner air, more free
time, working from home, etc. - point the way to the changes we need to make.
As many are
increasingly arguing, the Climate Emergency will, ultimately, only be tackled
on a global basis - which is why ecosocialists are committed to internationalism.
Thus, as an important first step, Trotsky and George Orwell’s slogans need to
be transformed into a call for a United
Ecosocialist States of Europe.
The Extreme Centre
The urgent need
for such a political entity from Tariq Ali’s book, The Extreme Centre:
Tariq Ali, The
Extreme Centre, 2015
As well as
warning about the various threats to democracy, and to the living standards of
the 99%, posed by the rise of neoliberalism, this book deals with the political
dangers posed by what Tariq Ali calls the pro-neoliberal ‘Extreme Centre’.
Prior to 2015,
the political situation in the UK was dominated by main parties that, to
different degrees, were united in offering to serve neoliberal interests - a
situation described by Tariq Ali as one of:
“an extreme centre, a trilateral
monolith, made up of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition plus Labour.” (p.17).
For almost 5
years, from 2015-20, that “trilateral
monolith” was broken up by the election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the
Labour Party, and the Labour Party’s consequent moves away from Blairite ‘New’
Labour, pro-neoliberal, positions.
Jeremy Corbyn no longer Leader, and with Keir Starmer now in his place, it
looks possible that much of the Corbyn Project will now be rolled back if, as
some fear, Keir Starmer tries to move the Labour Party back to some kind of an
opportunistic ‘Centre’ position.
If such a
development were to take place, this would be a political and human tragedy
because events since 1979 have shown, with increasingly-severe impacts on the
99%, that a return to any tri-partite ‘Extreme Centre’ consensus on maintaining
neoliberalism will result in ever-more suffering.
elites, protected and enabled by the ‘Extreme Centre’, are still both immensely
wealthy and powerful - and forces of radical opposition are still small and
often disunited. But, even if the Labour
Party starts to drift back to that ‘Extreme Centre’, those who form the core of
this radical opposition - in the Labour Party, in the Green Party, and
elsewhere - are the only hope of stopping and reversing capitalism’s
Ever since the
1970s, and the first Earth Day, history has shown time and time again that,
ultimately, market-based ecological ‘solutions’ haven’t and won’t stop the
crisis. In fact, to use a phrase of
Walter Benjamin’s, neoliberalism is driving the world “into the abyss”.
urgent need to move, as quickly as possible, to an ecosocialist future - as
Michael Löwy said in Ecosocialism: A
Radical Alternative to Capitalist Catastrophe (2015):
“Ecosocialism is a political current
based on an essential insight: that preserving the ecological equilibrium of
the planet and therefore an environment favourable to living species, including
ours, is incompatible with the expansive and destructive logic of the capitalist
Parties of the
‘Extreme Centre’ will never stop that destructive ‘logic’.
No Going Back!
Even if, under
Keir Starmer, Labour do win the next election by adopting a more ‘centre’
position, that won’t save us from the Climate Emergency - or solve the other
imperative to make a clear political break from all those who belong to that ‘Extreme
Centre’. For those who are still unconvinced about the need to make rapid moves
towards ecosocialism, it’s useful to remember what James Hansen said in his
book, Storms of My Grandchildren (2011):
“Planet Earth,…the world in which
civilization developed, the world with climate patterns that we know and stable
shore-lines, is in imminent peril. The urgency of the situation crystalized
only in the past few years. We now have clear evidence of the crisis, … The
startling conclusion is that continued exploitation of all fossil fuels on Earth
threatens not just the other millions of species on the planet but also the
survival of humanity itself - and the timetable is shorter than we thought.” (p.ix)
importance of Extinction Rebellion’s argument that, post-lockdown, there can be
‘No Going Back’ to the failed and rotten system we’ve put up with for the past
40 years. A system so broken that it’s:
pushed millions into dependency on foodbanks - including
many who are in employment, such as the nurses this government now wants
to ‘reward’ for their Covid-19 sacrifices with another pay freeze
forced thousands into rough-sleeping, via the Bedroom
Tax and insufficient affordable properties for rent
created, for the first time in over 100 years, a
society in which life expectancy has stalled - and, for women in poorer
areas, has actually declined
consistently refused to take the steps necessary for
protecting UK citizens from the growing threats from global warming
Yet this awful health
tragedy has shown - far more clearly than the financial crisis of 2008 - the
gross inequalities existing in the UK. It has also shown how many of these
problems can be tackled: for example, at present, rough-sleeping has been almost
eventually come out of this pandemic, bruised and battered, what we must not do
is attempt to ‘re-adjust’ ourselves to the so-called ‘normality’ of
neoliberalism. In preparation for the tasks ahead, we should be watching Ken
Loach’s excellent documentary, The Spirit
of 45, which shows how the WW2 generations voted overwhelmingly for a
better world in May 1945 - and made great steps towards achieving that better
world, which lasted through the 1950s & 1960s, only to fall back after the
oil crisis of 1973; and then, under Thatcher’s neoliberalism, suffer a fatal
it’s vital to grasp that the human tragedies, social disruptions and financial
costs of this pandemic are just a taste of the chaos and human suffering to
come, as the impacts of the worsening Climate Emergency increase in severity.
At this month’s
virtual Hay Festival, Mark Lynas will be talking about his new book, Our Final Warning: Six Degrees of Climate
Mark Lynas, Our
Final Warning, 2020
His book (which
is an even-more frightening update of his 2007 book) sets out, in stages of 1C
degree, all the various scenarios for global warming impacts - from a 1C
increase in average global temperatures above pre-industrial levels (where we
are now already); to those which would accompany a rise of 6C (which some
climate scientists and the IPCC are now warning is on the cards by the end of
this century, if there are no immediate and drastic cuts in greenhouse gas
impacts of unchecked global warming going to be so much worse than those of
this current pandemic, a ‘middle/liberal/centre’ position - whether
pro-neoliberal, or half-way between neoliberalism and ecosocialism - is no
A Red-Green United Front
IS Possible!” But, to get that other world,
we need to recognise that the old order’s ‘business as usual’ has led us to the
brink of an abyss - if not ended, it will push us and the planet over the edge.
Instead, we need to be pushing for a completely new content for social life -
giving real dignity to health & social care workers, and to all other
workers - and for serious measures to cut carbon emissions.
In the present
circumstances, this is going to need an active realignment of radical forces
which are prepared to work together for common goals.
On paper, in the UK, political groups such as RedGreen Labour, the Green Left, Left Unity and
Socialist Resistance - and organisations such as Another Europe, War on Want,
Global Justice Now and DiEM25 - have much more
in common than what divides them.
Only such an
active Red-Green Coalition of Radicals - which breaks with ‘business as usual’
and unites with like-minded people - can save us. Fortunately, there is a real
basis for meaningful co-operation and joint campaigning between these groups.
Consequently, history won’t forgive us if we continue to sit in our separate ‘camps’
and let this opportunity pass by.
It’s not a
question - certainly not at this stage - of merging to form a new party. It is
completely understandable that many of those in the Labour Party - though
disappointed by the outcome of the recent leadership elections - are deciding
to remain members, in order to resist the dropping of the Corbynite policy
The same holds
true for those in the Green Party (especially those in Green Left) who, despite
concerns over last December’s pact with the LibDems, remain to resist any shift
away from the party’s commendable radical commitments to social and economic
justice - something the right of the party has never been comfortable with.
course, as I’ve found out, those who do abandon old political loyalties and do
decide to leave Labour or the Greens, will find a very warm welcome in Left
In the present
circumstances, the important thing is to avoid the bitterness and narrow sectarian
party political divisions and separations which are sometimes a feature on the
left of the political spectrum! There’s
far too much at stake to hold back because of political loyalties which are too
narrow to take us forward. It makes no political sense to operate separately
anymore - if it ever did. Zoom gives us a wonderful chance to start joint
discussions and planning, so that we can ‘hit the ground running’ once the
lock-down ends. History tends
to give only fleeting opportunities for fundamental change - if they are
missed, the usual outcome is increased reaction. The past 40 years - in
particular, the last decade - have shown only too clearly what kind of reaction
can be expected if we let this opportunity slip from our grasp.
needed is an ecosocialist and internationalist Red-Green Coalition of Radicals
- like the Zimmerwald Movement which developed in 1915-16 before the crisis of
WW1 ended. Referring again to Michael Löwy (2015):
“The central premise of ecosocialism,
already suggested by the term itself, is that nonecological socialism is a dead
end and a nonsocialist ecology cannot confront the present ecological crisis.” (p.xi)
Allan Todd is a member of Left Unity, an
environmental and anti-fascist activist, and author of Revolutions
The Future of
the Left is an essay written by Murray Bookchin in 2002, but first published in
2015, in Bookchin’s collection of essays The
Next Revolution. The book is edited by Debbie Bookchin and Blair Taylor and
runs through Bookchin’s fairly unique take on the politics of the Left.
The Future of
the Left is almost sixty pages long, where Bookchin looks into the
possibilities of Marxist socialism, but laments its deficiencies, more so that
of contemporary Marxists and the twentieth century regimes inspired by Marx,
but the old boy himself also gets some criticism from Bookchin. In particular,
he labels the socialist experiments as centralised, bureaucratic and
authoritarian, which is undeniably true.
promising beginning to the twentieth century, where socialism seemed as though
it might replace capitalism as the dominant world order, with especially the
Russian revolution offering an alternative pole of attraction, Bookchin says:
occurred since the mid-point of the twentieth century is a very different development:
a period of cultural and theoretical decadence so far as revolutionary ideas
and movements are concerned; a period of decomposition, in fact, that has swept
up nearly all the philosophical, cultural, ethical, and social standards that the
Enlightenment had produced…as social theory has retreated from the lusty debating
forums of 1930s socialism to the cloistered seminar rooms of contemporary
Now that the
twentieth century has come to a close, we are justified in asking, why has
humanity’s emancipation failed to achieve fruition? Why, in particular, has the
proletariat failed to make its predicted revolution?
some answers to these questions, accusing Marxists of failing to understand the
changing nature of the working class, as industrial production dwindled with
workers increasingly moving into ‘white collar’ salaried jobs and professions. The
aspiration to emulate successful rich people, rather than despise them, in this
changing cultural landscape, being largely dismissed as ‘false consciousness’ by
Marxist thinkers. Bookchin points out that 40% of the US public owned stock on
financial markets at the turn of the millennium. He says Marxism fetishizes a
kind of mysticism in the working class.
countries in the second half of the twentieth century, driven by an almost post
scarcity, capitalism has managed to make changes in cultural norms, home
ownership, status automobiles, and foreign travel have become fashionable for
the masses, boosting consumerism with advertising for the next must have
product. These are my words, but it is kind of summed up in the idea of ‘bucket
lists’. Although capitalism falls into crisis from time to time, it always bounces
back, stronger it seems than ever.
To those who
have read some of Bookchin’s work before, like me, it comes as no surprise that
he criticises Marxism and those acting in Marx’s name, but he then more
surprisingly opens fire on anarchism and syndicalism. Asking if anarchism
offers a better alternative to Marxism, he says:
years of trying to work with this ideology, my own very considered opinion is
that such a hope which I entertained as early as the 1950s, is unrealisable…In
reality, anarchism has no coherent body of theory other than its commitment to
an ahistorical conception of ‘personnel autonomy’.
anarchism, like Marxism, of importing alien concepts, like syndicalism and
ecology, but seems to be mostly frustrated by anarchism's latent lack of
organisation and distrust of ‘leaders’. He says anarchist theory is that it,
anarchism, has always existed, but like the soil under the snow, the snow just
needs to thaw for it come into its own. But with only a kind of primitivism to
offer as an alternative society, it is doomed to failure.
anarcho-syndicalism, citing the revolution in Catalonia in 1936, he says the unions
allowed anarchist thinking to influence a disastrous reluctance to lead with a
programme, after the initial success of the revolution.
So, what does
Bookchin think is the future of the Left? Well, after all the criticism of
Marxism and anarchism, and the accusation of importing alien concepts, he
rather contradicts himself by recommending taking the best bits of both traditions
and melding them into what he calls libertarian communism. This would be administered by municipalities under democratic community communalist control,
with lower level assemblies having a right to recall those above them.
But he also
thinks that to get to this place, the Left needs to appeal to the working and
middle classes, and the best way he thinks to do this is through environmental
concerns, which do affect the lower classes more, but also affect everyone. Air
quality, polluted rivers and seas, and dangerous climate change, will impact on
everyone, to some extent.
must focus on issues that are interclass in nature, addressing the middle as
well as the working class. By the very logic of its grow-or-die imperative,
capitalism may well be producing an ecological crisis that gravely imperil the
integrity of life on this planet…
capitalism to desist from its mindless expansion would be for it to commit
suicide. By definition, capitalism is a competitive economy that cannot cease
for a preparedness, on the part of the Left to develop a programme for a post revolutionary society in advance, around issues of a clean environment, more localised
production and real democracy. Revolutions can happen quickly sometimes, and
with all the uncertainty of these times, who can say what will happen? But the
Left needs a coherent programme in place for when any opportunities can be
forced, or arrive anyway.
off his essay thus:
the revolutionary tradition, a reasoned Left has to shake off dead traditions
that, as Marx warned, weigh on the heads of the living, and commit itself to
create a rational society and a rounded civilisation.
before the first Earth Day in 1970, Rachel Carson was one of the earliest researchers and writers to warn about the growing threats to the natural world
in the 20th. C - specifically, she focused on the dangers inherent in the use
of organophosphate pesticides by large-scale agri-businesses. As a result of
her studies, she concluded that:
of nature is not the same today as in Pleistocene times, but it is still there:
a complex, precise, and highly integrated system of relationships between
living things which cannot safely be ignored any more than the law of gravity
can be defied with impunity by a [person] perched on the edge of a cliff. The
balance of nature is not a status quo; it is fluid, ever shifting, in a
constant state of adjustment. [Humans], too, [are] part of this balance.”
Since she wrote
her ground-breaking book in 1962, it has become frighteningly clear that the
‘ecological problem’ is now this century’s greatest problem, and that the world
now faces an existential planetary crisis. In particular, it has become
increasingly clear to many that capitalism is ecologically dysfunctional and
inherently destructive of biodiversity. However, Rachel Carson was by no means
the first to comment on the negative impacts on the natural world which
accompanied the growth of industrial capitalism.
John Bellamy Foster and Paul Burkett (Marx and the Earth) have done much
work to show that both Marx and Engels were aware of this as early as the
second half of the 19th. C. Their work has established that ecological concerns
were central to Marx’s critique of capitalism, based on his understanding that
humankind was a part of nature, which led him to develop an ecological world
Marx saw capitalism’s commodification of nature leading, in practical terms, to
the growing degradation of nature, thus creating a dangerous ‘metabolic rift’ -
or separation - between humans and the natural world. The historian and
environmentalist, Andreas Malm (The Progress of this Storm: Nature and
Society in a Warming World), saw Marx’s concept of the ‘metabolic rift’ as
being one line of inquiry into environmental problems that: “…has outshone
all others in creativity and productivity.”
Marx was also
keenly aware of the importance of sustainability; and the need to think of
future generations who would have to live in the world left to them:
entire society, a nation, or all simultaneously existing societies taken
together, are not the owners of the earth. They are simply its possessors, its
beneficiaries, and have to bequeath it in an improved state to succeeding
As Foster and
Burkett point out, Marx’s insight concerning ecological crises meant he
intensifying ecological problem of capitalist society could be traced… to the rift in the metabolism between human
beings and nature (that is, the alienation of nature) that formed the very
basis of capitalism’s existence as a system, made worse by accumulation, i.e.
capitalism’s own expansion.”
Both Marx and
Engels understood that serious ecological problems could arise from the
relationships between human economic production and the natural world, and that
it was important to solve such contradictions by ensuring that human production
remained in harmony with nature. This was because, ultimately, humans depended
on the natural world, of which they were merely a part. Failure to do so, Engels warned, would result
in serious problems:
“Let us not,
however, flatter ourselves overmuch on account of our human victories over
nature. For each such victory nature takes its revenge on us. Each victory, it
is true, in the first place brings about the results we expected, but… at every
step we are reminded that we by no means rule over nature…- but that we,…belong
to nature, and exist in its midst,…”
A later Marxist
who was also fully aware of the importance of the relationship between humans
and the natural world was Nikolai Bukharin who believed that the ultimate basis
of materialism lay in ecology, because human beings were both the product of
nature and, at the same time, a part of it.
As John Bellamy Foster (Marx’s Ecology: Materialism and Nature)
points out, “Bukharin built his analysis [of the relationship between humans
and nature] on Marx’s concept of the metabolic interaction between nature and
Thus we can
learn useful lessons from Marx and Engels (who were not the out-and-out
‘Promethean productionists’ as is often alleged), and others who would now be
seen as early ecosocialists, on how to deal with the current problems besetting
the natural world. In particular, it is important to realise that capitalism -
because of its global scope - has the ability to continue accumulating profits
despite the damage it causes to nature in specific and scattered locations. As
Paul Burkett (Marx and Nature: A Red and Green Perspective) has noted:
becoming more obvious in recent years that the natural conditions of human life
(not to speak of other species of life) are increasingly threatened even as -
indeed, precisely because - capital continues to accumulate.”
aspect to grasp concerning the issue of the metabolic rift and the ecological
crises is that unlimited and continuous production and consumption is just not
ecologically sustainable. Writing on this aspect in 2005, Sheila Malone (Ecosocialism
or barbarism) emphasised that:
operates on the basis that the earth’s resources are there for limitless
exploitation, and that market forces will always find a (benign) solution to a
A society and
economy that meets the true needs of both humans and nature will value
different ‘commodities’: such as greater leisure time. Amongst others to point
this out was Ernest Mandel (Power and Money):
have become aware, with much delay, that dangers to the earth’s non-renewable
resources, and to the natural environment of human civilization and human life,
also entail that the consumption of material goods and services cannot grow in
an unlimited way.”
Ian Angus (Facing
the Anthropocene: Fossil Capitalism and the Crisis of the Earth System) is
one of many who has warned that the worsening negative impacts of capitalism
could, if unchecked, very rapidly lead to the Anthropocene being the shortest
of all epochs:
has driven the Earth System to a crisis point in the relationship between
humanity and the rest of nature. If business as usual continues, the first full
century of the Anthropocene will be marked by rapid deterioration of our
physical, social, and economic environment.”
All this should
make it clear that for an economy to be ecologically sustainable, it needs to
heal the metabolic rift by re-establishing a respectful metabolism with nature
- and, in particular, by accepting the need to protect and conserve the land
for present and future generations.
This is particularly relevant to the
current forms of capitalist agricultural production which treats the natural
world only as part of the productive process itself. Whilst no agricultural
production can fail to have some impacts on nature, those of global
capitalism’s highly-industrialised agriculture are so negative because, instead
of growing food for use, it grows it mainly for profit.
of the natural world
One of those to
have made clear how capitalist agriculture is environmentally irrational and
unsustainable is Fred Magdoff. In a 2015 article:
he focused on a
range of negative impacts concerning agriculture in the US - but many of his
comments about capitalist agriculture’s impacts on ecosystems are applicable
loss of biodiversity as native plant species are eradicated to grow the crops
desired for sale in the market The loss of habitat for diverse species means
that there is also a loss of natural control mechanisms…All of the common
decisions and practices in the agricultural system…[are rational] only from the
very narrow perspective of trying to make profits within a capitalist system.”
Of the many
negative impacts of global capitalist agriculture (apart from its high
emissions of greenhouse gases), one of the most dramatic is related to land
use, deforestation and biodiversity/species loss - which is particularly marked
in the Amazonian rainforest. This acts as the ‘lungs’ of the planet, and is an
essential part of Earth’s ecological equilibrium. In the last 50 years or so,
one third of the world’s woodland has been destroyed. As pointed out by Ian
“Most of the
land now being converted to agriculture was formerly tropical forest,
so…tropical forest loss continues to accelerate.” This is a huge factor in the current
ecological crises: “Brazil’s tropical rain forests are disappearing at an
alarming rate, cut down or burnt to create short-term grazing land for cattle
to produce quick profits for big landowners.“
Much of the
destruction of such important natural habitats is connected to the global meat
and dairy industries. These need, at the very least, to be drastically reduced,
if we are to create sustainable agro-ecosystems that work for people instead of
for corporate profits.
Just how much
biodiversity loss has been taking place because of capitalist agriculture - as
well as global warming - was shown by Elizabeth Kolbert. In her book, The
Sixth Extinction: A Unnatural History, she wrote about what is known as the
‘Sixth Extinction’, and to ‘background extinction’ rates. The normal
‘background extinction’ rate of mammal species is 0.25 per-million
species-years. As she points out:
that, since there are about fifty-five hundred mammal species wandering around
today, at the background extinction rate you’d expect - once again, very
roughly - one species to disappear every seven hundred years.”
current rate of species loss shows the earth is undergoing its Sixth Mass
Extinction - the first to be driven specifically by human activities. Because
of the combination of global warming, one group of scientists in 2004 estimated
that, by 2050, anything from 13% to 32% of all species could be lost - with an
average of 24% of all species heading towards extinction. Whilst different
studies have produced varying figures, the general consensus is that the
species extinction rate is the highest in 65 million years - with an extinction
rate 1000 times greater than the natural ‘background extinction’ rate.
several aspects of the 2004 study have been criticised, it is important to bear
in mind that this study mainly focused on the impact of climate change. Once
physical destruction, or fragmentation, of natural habitats is also factored in,
the picture becomes much more dire. This is because whilst global warming
compels some species to migrate, the destruction of natural habitats and the
creation of various ‘barriers’ (such as roads and clear-cuts) means migration
becomes much more difficult or even impossible.
These threats -
and others associated with capitalist agriculture, such as the heavy use of
pesticides - are becoming increasingly destructive. This is particularly so
because of the irrational demands of the meat and dairy industries, which
dominate agricultural land use.
Various studies have shown that, by shifting
massively away from meat and dairy production, the world could adequately feed
a population much larger then the present 7+ billion. The meat and dairy
industries are extremely inefficient when it comes to producing proteins for
human consumption: 100 kilos of plant protein is needed to produce 9 kilos of
beef protein or 31 kilos of milk protein. Or, to put it another way, 10
hectares of land can produce:
• meat to feed 2 people
• maize to feed 10 people
• wheat/grain to feed 24 people
• soya to feed 61 people
50% of all crops grown is fed to farmed animals. The big agri-businesses
require roughly 70% of the world’s land, as grazing for animals and for growing
crops for feed. To ensure enough productive land is available, huge areas of
forests are being felled all over the world - sometimes illegally - on an
industrial scale. By far the biggest culprit in this is cattle farming, which
is the main cause of deforestation across the globe. In particular, it is
increasingly responsible for the destruction of what remains of the Amazon
forests are still being lost at a rate of 7.3 million hectares per year -
mostly for cattle ranching and the growing of fodder crops. Currently, about
70% of the cleared Amazon rainforest is used for the grazing of cattle. Just 1 hamburger made from Costa Rican beef
results in the destruction of:
• 1 large tree
• 50 saplings
• almost 30 different species of
• hundreds of species of insects,
mosses, fungi and micro-organisms
All this is
confirmed by Alan Thornett (Facing the Apocalypse: Arguments for
Ecosocialism), in one of the most recent - and most informative - overviews
of the many negative impacts of capitalism on the natural world. As regards capitalist agriculture, the
current global levels of meat production and consumption are completely
unsustainable. Apart from the huge numbers of land animals slaughtered every
year for human consumption - around 70 billion - the meat industry is hugely
inefficient when it comes to feeding the world’s human population, as these
vast quantities of corn, maize, and soy that could otherwise be eaten, far more
effectively, by the human population including the planet’s billions of hungry
people...The cattle sector of Brazilian Amazon agriculture, driven by the
international beef and leather trades, has been responsible for about 80 per
cent of all deforestation in the region, or roughly 14 per cent of the world’s
total annual deforestation. It is the world’s largest single driver of
As well as
being a key factor in the absorption of CO2 (and thus helping to slow down
global warming), rain forests contain the largest reservoirs of biodiversity.
Yet now, around 60% of global biodiversity loss is directly due to capitalist
agriculture. This is of particular relevance to the current Covid-19 pandemic.
infinite economic growth is incompatible with the increasingly fragile
ecosystems on what is a finite planet. Thus a more ecologically-sustainable
society, more in tune with the natural environment, would make decisions to
repair, as quickly as possible, the enormous environmental damage already
inflicted on the natural world by global capitalism. For instance, in order to
preserve the Earth’s ecological equilibrium, certain branches of production -
such as the meat and dairy industries, industrial-scale fishing, and the
destructive logging of tropical rain forests - should be discontinued or, at the
least, drastically reduced.
such a society would reduce or even abolish certain products, whilst
subsidising and expanding those that could be produced in harmony with
ecosystems and the non-human species living on this planet. It would also seek
to move to greater local production for local consumption - something that the
global pandemic lock-downs is currently enforcing - in order to enhance food
security and further reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The creation of
sustainable agro-ecosystems would go a long way to help achieve this.
As regards food
production, there is a pressing need to eliminate the polluting industrial meat
and dairy agri-businesses. Fortunately, there is already a rapidly-growing
trend - especially, but not exclusively, amongst young people - to adopt vegan
or vegetarian diets. Whilst separate ‘life-style’ actions taken by individuals
will not, on their own, bring about the rapid significant changes needed to
protect the natural world, such moves should nonetheless be warmly welcomed -
and encouraged. This is a development which shows the emergence of a more
humane and respectful approach to nature. As Gandhi is reputed to have said:
change that you wish to see in the world.” Or, to put it another way: “Nothing
changes if nobody changes.”
In the end,
though, as Ian Angus says, the only way to avoid “a catastrophic convergence of
multiple Earth System failures” (of
which global capitalist agriculture is one crucial element) is to use
that are anathema to capitalism. Profit must be removed from consideration; all
changes must be made as part of a democratically created and legally binding
global plan that governs both the conversion to renewables and the rapid
elimination of industries and activities, such as…factory farming, that only
produce what John Ruskin called ‘illth’, the opposite of wealth.”
any prospects of a ‘green’ capitalism are rapidly evaporating, it is
nonetheless important to push for some immediate reforms. In part, this is
because we desperately need to win time and mitigate the harms currently being
done by the ‘system’. In addition:
struggle for ecosocial reforms can be the vehicle for dynamic change, a
‘transition’ between minimal demands and the maximal program, provided one
rejects the pressure and arguments of the ruling interests for ‘competitiveness
and ‘modernization’ in the name of the ‘rules of the market’.”
action will be to get behind campaigns that chip away at the ability of
corporations to continue their attacks on the natural world - for instance, the
various fossil-fuel divestment campaigns waged by groups like 350.org. In
addition, as well as winning some immediate reforms, it will also be necessary
to block any policies or actions by corporations or the government that will
make the situation even worse. Hence the need to oppose any attempts to
re-start fracking, once the lock-down has ended.With time so short, we need to slow or
reverse capitalism’s ecologically-suicidal activities.
however, there will be no radical transformations - of the kind now desperately
needed - without a radical ecosocialist programme being embraced by a
sufficient mass of people.
As Naomi Klein
(This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate) has said:
social movements can save us now. Because we know where the current system,
left unchecked, is headed…[the only hope is that] some countervailing power
will emerge to block the road, and simultaneously clear some alternate pathways
to destinations that are safer. If that happens, well, it changes
The rise of
‘Corbynism’ has shown the potential for inspiring huge enthusiasm for radical
change. Extinction Rebellion, too, has shown what can be achieved in a very
short time - XR wasn’t even launched until October 2018 - to build a new mass
create a really powerful and effective movement, that will promote what E. P.
Thompson called the “human ecological imperative”, it will be necessary to draw
in a large proportion of the working classes. This could be done by XR becoming
more ‘political’ about the ‘System Change’ it so rightly calls for: an explicit
endorsement of a radical ecosocialist programme of reforms would be a really
big positive step towards this. We now have very little time left in which to
halt capitalism’s increasingly destructive course.
look bad right now, it is important to try to follow Antonio Gramsci’s advice: “Pessimism
of the intellect, optimism of the will.”
we don’t fight, we - and the Earth - will lose. Perhaps, to get some serious
momentum behind such developments - and to give us the vision we so badly need
of a better and more sustainable world - we should ask Ken Loach to make a 2020
version of his brilliantly-effective documentary film, The Spirit of ’45
is a member of Left Unity, an environmental and anti-fascist activist, and
author of Revolutions 1789-1917