Written by Michael
Löwy and first published at The Great Transition Initiative
Abstract: The capitalist system, driven at its
core by the maximization of profit, regardless of social and ecological costs,
is incompatible with a just and sustainable future. Ecosocialism offers a
radical alternative that puts social and ecological well-being first. Attuned
to the links between the exploitation of labor and the exploitation of the
environment, ecosocialism stands against both reformist “market ecology” and
“productivist socialism.”
By embracing a new model of robustly democratic
planning, society can take control of the means of production and its own
destiny. Shorter work hours and a focus on authentic needs over consumerism can
facilitate the elevation of “being” over “having,” and the achievement of a
deeper sense of freedom for all. To realize this vision, however,
environmentalists and socialists will need to recognize their common struggle
and how that connects with the broader “movement of movements” seeking a Great
Transition.
Introduction
Contemporary
capitalist civilization is in crisis. The unlimited accumulation of capital,
commodification of everything, ruthless exploitation of labor and nature, and
attendant brutal competition undermine the bases of a sustainable future,
thereby putting the very survival of the human species at risk. The deep,
systemic threat we face demands a deep, systemic change: a Great Transition.
In synthesizing
the basic tenets of ecology and the Marxist critique of political
economy, ecosocialism offers a radical alternative to an
unsustainable status quo. Rejecting a capitalist definition of “progress” based
on market growth and quantitative expansion (which, as Marx shows, is a destructive progress),
it advocates policies founded on non-monetary criteria, such as social needs,
individual well-being, and ecological equilibrium. Ecosocialism proffers a
critique of both mainstream “market ecology,” which does not challenge the
capitalist system, and “productivist socialism,” which ignores natural limits.
As people
increasingly realize how the economic and ecological crises intertwine,
ecosocialism has been gaining adherents. Ecosocialism, as a movement, is
relatively new, but some of its basic arguments date back to the writings of
Marx and Engels. Now, intellectuals and activists are recovering this legacy
and seeking a radical restructuring of the economy according to the principles
of democratic ecological planning, putting human and planetary needs first and
foremost.
The “actually
existing socialisms” of the twentieth century, with their often environmentally
oblivious bureaucracies, do not offer an attractive model for today’s
ecosocialists. Rather, we must chart a new path forward, one that links with
the myriad movements around the globe that share the conviction that a better
world is not only possible, but also necessary.
Democratic
Ecological Planning
The core of
ecosocialism is the concept of democratic ecological planning, wherein the
population itself, not “the market” or a Politburo, make the main decisions
about the economy. Early in the Great Transition to this new way of life, with
its new mode of production and consumption, some sectors of the economy must be
suppressed (e.g., the extraction of fossil fuels implicated in the climate
crisis) or restructured, while new sectors are developed. Economic
transformation must be accompanied by active pursuit of full employment with
equal conditions of work and wages. This egalitarian vision is essential both
for building a just society and for engaging the support of the working class
for the structural transformation of the productive forces.
Ultimately,
such a vision is irreconcilable with private control of the means of production
and of the planning process. In particular, for investments and technological
innovation to serve the common good, decision-making must be taken away from
the banks and capitalist enterprises that currently dominate, and put in the
public domain. Then, society itself, and neither a small oligarchy of property
owners nor an elite of techno-bureaucrats, will democratically decide which
productive lines are to be privileged, and how resources are to be invested in
education, health, or culture. Major decisions on investment priorities—such as
terminating all coal-fired facilities or directing agricultural subsidies to organic
production—would be taken by direct popular vote. Other, less important
decisions would be taken by elected bodies, on the relevant national, regional,
or local scale.
Although
conservatives fearmonger about “central planning,” democratic ecological
planning ultimately supports more freedom, not less, for several reasons.
First, it offers liberation from the reified “economic laws” of the capitalist
system that shackle individuals in what Max Weber called an “iron cage.” Prices
of goods would not be left to the “laws of supply and demand,” but would,
instead, reflect social and political priorities, with the use of taxes and
subsidies to incentivize social goods and disincentivize social ills. Ideally,
as the ecosocialist transition moves forward, more products and services
critical for meeting fundamental human needs would be freely distributed,
according to the will of the citizens.
Second,
ecosocialism heralds a substantial increase in free time. Planning and the
reduction of labor time are the two decisive steps towards what Marx called
“the kingdom of freedom.” A significant increase of free time is, in fact, a
condition for the participation of working people in the democratic discussion
and management of economy and of society.
Last,
democratic ecological planning represents a whole society’s exercise of its
freedom to control the decisions that affect its destiny. If the democratic
ideal would not grant political decision-making power to a small elite, why
should the same principle not apply to economic decisions? Under capitalism,
use-value—the worth of a product or service to well-being—exists only in the
service of exchange-value, or value on the market. Thus, many products in
contemporary society are socially useless, or designed for rapid turnover
(“planned obsolescence”). By contrast, in a planned ecosocialist economy,
use-value would be the only criteria for the production of goods and services,
with far-reaching economic, social, and ecological consequences.[1]
Planning would
focus on large-scale economic decisions, not the small-scale ones that might
affect local restaurants, groceries, small shops, or artisan enterprises.
Importantly, such planning is consistent with workers’ self-management of their
productive units. The decision, for example, to transform a plant from
producing automobiles to producing buses and trams would be taken by society as
a whole, but the internal organization and functioning of the enterprise would
be democratically managed by its workers.
There has been much discussion about
the “centralized” or “decentralized” character of planning, but most important
is democratic control at all levels—local, regional, national, continental, or
international. For example, planetary ecological issues such as global warming
must be dealt with on a global scale, and thereby require some form of global
democratic planning. This nested, democratic decision-making is quite the
opposite of what is usually described, often dismissively, as “central
planning,” since decisions are not taken by any “center,” but democratically
decided by the affected population at the appropriate scale.
Democratic and
pluralist debate would occur at all levels. Through parties, platforms, or
other political movements, varied propositions would be submitted to the
people, and delegates would be elected accordingly. However, representative
democracy must be complemented—and corrected—by Internet-enabled direct
democracy, through which people choose—at the local, national, and, later,
global level—among major social and ecological options. Should public
transportation be free? Should the owners of private cars pay special taxes to
subsidize public transportation? Should solar energy be subsidized in order to
compete with fossil energy? Should the work week be reduced to 30 hours, 25, or
less, with the attendant reduction of production?
Such democratic
planning needs expert input, but its role is educational, to present informed
views on alternative outcomes for consideration by popular decision-making
processes. What guarantee is there that the people will make ecologically sound
decisions? None. Ecosocialism wagers that democratic decisions will become
increasingly reasoned and enlightened as culture changes and the grip of
commodity fetishism is broken. One cannot imagine such a new society without
the population achieving through struggle, self-education, and social
experience, a high level of socialist and ecological consciousness. In any
case, are not the alternatives—the blind market or an ecological dictatorship
of “experts”—much more dangerous?
The Great Transition
from capitalist destructive progress to ecosocialism is a historical process, a
permanent revolutionary transformation of society, culture, and mindsets.
Enacting this transition leads not only to a new mode of production and an
egalitarian and democratic society, but also to an alternative mode of
life, a new ecosocialist civilization, beyond the reign of
money, beyond consumption habits artificially produced by advertising, and
beyond the unlimited production of commodities that are useless and/or harmful
to the environment.
Such a transformative process depends on the active
support of the vast majority of the population for an ecosocialist program. The
decisive factor in development of socialist consciousness and ecological
awareness is the collective experience of struggle, from local and partial
confrontations to the radical change of global society as a whole.
The Growth
Question
The issue of
economic growth has divided socialists and environmentalists. Ecosocialism,
however, rejects the dualistic frame of growth versus degrowth, development
versus anti-development, because both positions share a purely quantitative conception
of productive forces. A third position resonates more with the task ahead:
the qualitative transformation of development.
A new
development paradigm means putting an end to the egregious waste of resources
under capitalism, driven by large-scale production of useless and harmful
products. The arms industry is, of course, a dramatic example, but, more
generally, the primary purpose of many of the “goods” produced—with their
planned obsolescence—is to generate profit for large corporations. The issue is
not excessive consumption in the abstract, but the prevalent type of
consumption, based as it is on massive waste and the conspicuous and compulsive
pursuit of novelties promoted by “fashion.” A new society would orient
production towards the satisfaction of authentic needs, including water, food,
clothing, housing, and such basic services as health, education, transport, and
culture.
Obviously, the
countries of the Global South, where these needs are very far from being
satisfied, must pursue greater classical “development”—railroads, hospitals,
sewage systems, and other infrastructure. Still, rather than emulate how affluent
countries built their productive systems, these countries can pursue
development in far more environmentally friendly ways, including the rapid
introduction of renewable energy. While many poorer countries will need to
expand agricultural production to nourish hungry, growing populations, the
ecosocialist solution is to promote agroecology methods rooted in family units,
cooperatives, or larger-scale collective farms—not the destructive
industrialized agribusiness methods involving intensive inputs of pesticides,
chemicals, and GMOs.[2]
At the same
time, the ecosocialist transformation would end the heinous debt system the
Global South now confronts the exploitations of its resources by advanced
industrial countries as well as rapidly developing countries like China.
Instead, we can envision a strong flow of technical and economic assistance
from North to South rooted in a robust sense of solidarity and the recognition
that planetary problems require planetary solutions. This need not entail that
people in affluent countries “reduce their standard of living”—only that they
shun the obsessive consumption, induced by the capitalist system, of useless
commodities that do not meet real needs or contribute to human well-being and
flourishing.
But how do we
distinguish authentic from artificial and counterproductive needs? To a
considerable degree, the latter are stimulated by the mental manipulation of
advertising. In contemporary capitalist societies, the advertising industry has
invaded all spheres of life, shaping everything from the food we eat and the
clothes we wear to sports, culture, religion, and politics. Promotional
advertising has become ubiquitous, insidiously infesting our streets,
landscapes, and traditional and digital media, molding habits of conspicuous
and compulsive consumption.
Moreover, the ad industry itself is a source of
considerable waste of natural resources and labor time, ultimately paid by the
consumer, for a branch of “production” that lies in direct contradiction with
real social-ecological needs. While indispensable to the capitalist market
economy, the advertising industry would have no place in a society in
transition to ecosocialism; it would be replaced by consumer associations that
vet and disseminate information on goods and services.
While these changes are already
happening to some extent, old habits would likely persist for some years, and
nobody has the right to dictate peoples’ desires. Altering patterns of
consumption is an ongoing educational challenge within a historical process of
cultural change.
A fundamental
premise of ecosocialism is that in a society without sharp class divisions and
capitalist alienation, “being” will take precedence over “having.” Instead of seeking endless goods, people pursue greater free time, and
the personal achievements and meaning it can bring through cultural, athletic,
playful, scientific, erotic, artistic, and political activities. There is no
evidence that compulsive acquisitiveness stems from intrinsic “human nature,”
as conservative rhetoric suggests.
Rather, it is induced by the commodity
fetishism inherent in the capitalist system, by the dominant ideology, and by
advertising. Ernest Mandel summarizes this critical point well: “The continual
accumulation of more and more goods […] is by no means a universal and even
predominant feature of human behavior. The development of talents and
inclinations for their own sake; the protection of health and life; care for
children; the development of rich social relations […] become major motivations
once basic material needs have been satisfied.” [3]
Of course, even
a classless society faces conflict and contradiction. The transition to
ecosocialism would confront tensions between the requirements of protecting the
environment and meeting social needs; between ecological imperatives and the
development of basic infrastructure; between popular consumer habits and the
scarcity of resources; between communitarian and cosmopolitan impulses.
Struggles among competing desiderata are inevitable.
Hence, weighing and
balancing such interests must become the task of a democratic planning process,
liberated from the imperatives of capital and profit-making, to come up with solutions
through transparent, plural, and open public discourse. Such participatory
democracy at all levels does not mean that there will not be mistakes, but it
allows for the self-correction by the members of the social collectivity of its
own mistakes.
Intellectual
Roots
Although
ecosocialism is a fairly recent phenomenon, its intellectual roots can be
traced back to Marx and Engels. Because environmental issues were not as
salient in the nineteenth century as in our era of incipient ecological catastrophe,
these concerns did not play a central role in Marx and Engels’s works.
Nevertheless, their writings use arguments and concepts vital to the connection
between capitalist dynamics and the destruction of the natural environment, and
to the development of a socialist and ecological alternative to the prevailing
system.
Some passages
in Marx and Engels (and certainly in the dominant Marxist currents that
followed) do embrace an uncritical stance toward the productive forces created
by capital, treating the “development of productive forces” as the main factor
in human progress. However, Marx was radically opposed to what we now call
“productivism”— the capitalist logic by which the accumulation of capital,
wealth, and commodities becomes an end in itself.
The fundamental idea of a
socialist economy—in contrast to the bureaucratic caricatures that prevailed in
the “socialist” experiments of the twentieth century—is to produce use-values,
goods that are necessary for the satisfaction of human needs, well-being, and
fulfillment.
The central feature of technical progress for Marx was not the
indefinite growth of products (“having”) but the reduction of socially
necessary labor and concomitant increase of free time (“being”).[4] Marx’s emphasis on communist
self-development, on free time for artistic, erotic, or intellectual
activities—in contrast to the capitalist obsession with the consumption of more
and more material goods—implies a decisive reduction of pressure on the natural
environment.[5]
Beyond the
presumed benefit for the environment, a key Marxian contribution to socialist
ecological thinking is attributing to capitalism a metabolic rift—i.e., a
disruption of the material exchange between human societies and the natural
environment. The issue is discussed, inter alia, in a well-known
passage of Capital:
Capitalist
production […] disturbs the metabolic interaction between man and the earth,
i.e., prevents the return to the soil of its constituent elements consumed by
man in the form of food and clothing; hence it hinders the operation of the
eternal natural conditions for the lasting fertility of the soil. […] All
progress in capitalist agriculture is a progress in the art, not only of
robbing the worker, but of robbing the soil […]. The more a country […]
develops itself on the basis of great industry, the more this process of
destruction takes place quickly. Capitalist production […] only develops […] by
simultaneously undermining the original sources of all wealth—the soil and the
worker. [6]
This important
passage clarifies Marx’s dialectical vision of the
contradictions of “progress” and its destructive consequences for nature under
capitalist conditions. The example, of course, is limited to the loss of
fertility by the soil. But on this basis, Marx draws the broad insight that
capitalist production embodies a tendency to undermine the “eternal natural
conditions.” From a similar vantage, Marx reiterates his more familiar argument
that the same predatory logic of capitalism exploits and debases workers.
While most
contemporary ecosocialists are inspired by Marx’s insights, ecology has become
far more central to their analysis and action. During the 1970s and 1980s in
Europe and the US, an ecological socialism began to take shape. Manuel
Sacristan, a Spanish dissident-Communist philosopher, founded the ecosocialist
and feminist journal Mientras Tanto in 1979, introducing the
dialectical concept of “destructive-productive forces.” Raymond Williams, a
British socialist and founder of modern cultural studies, became one of the
first in Europe to call for an “ecologically conscious socialism” and is often
credited with coining the term “ecosocialism” itself.
André Gorz, a French
philosopher and journalist, argued that political ecology must contain a
critique of economic thought and called for an ecological and humanist
transformation of work. Barry Commoner, an American biologist, argued that the
capitalist system and its technology—and not population growth—was responsible
for the destruction of the environment, which led him to the conclusion that
“some sort of socialism” was the realistic alternative.[7]
In the 1980s,
James O’Connor founded the influential journal Capitalism, Nature and
Socialism. The journal was inspired by O’Connor’s idea of the “second
contradiction of capitalism.” In this formulation, the first contradiction is
the Marxist one between the forces and relations of production; the second
contradiction lies between the mode of production and the “conditions of
production,” especially, the state of the environment.
A new
generation of eco-Marxists appeared in the 2000s, including John Bellamy Foster
and others around the journal Monthly Review, who further developed
the Marxian concept of metabolic rift between human societies
and the environment. In 2001, Joel Kovel and the present author issued “An
Ecosocialist Manifesto,” which was further developed by the same authors,
together with Ian Angus, in the 2008 Belem Ecosocialist Manifesto, which was
signed by hundreds of people from forty countries and distributed at the World
Social Forum in 2009. It has since become an important reference for
ecosocialists around the world.[8]
Why
Environmentalists Need to Be Socialists
As these and
other authors have shown, capitalism is incompatible with a sustainable future.
The capitalist system, an economic growth machine propelled by fossil fuels
since the Industrial Revolution, is a primary culprit in climate change and the
wider ecological crisis on Earth. Its irrational logic of endless expansion and
accumulation, waste of resources, ostentatious consumption, planned obsolescence,
and pursuit of profit at any cost is driving the planet to the brink of the
abyss.
Does “green
capitalism”—the strategy of reducing environmental impact while maintaining
dominant economic institutions—offer a solution? The implausibility of such a
Policy Reform scenario is seen most vividly in the failure of a quarter-century
of international conferences to effectively address climate change.[9] The political forces committed to
the capitalist “market economy” that have created the problem cannot be the
source of the solution.
For example, at
the 2015 Paris climate conference, many countries resolved to make serious
efforts to keep average global temperature increases below 2o C
(ideally, they agreed, below 1.5o C). Correspondingly, they
volunteered to implement measures to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
However, they put no enforcement mechanisms in place nor consequences for
noncompliance, hence no guarantee that any country will keep its word. The US,
the world’s second-highest emitter of carbon emissions, is now run by a climate
denier who pulled the US out of the agreement. Even if all countries did meet
their commitments, the global temperature would rise by 3o C or
more, with great risk of dire, irreversible climate change.[10]
Ultimately, the
fatal flaw of green capitalism lies in the conflict between the
micro-rationality of the capitalist market, with its short-sighted calculation
of profit and loss, and the macro-rationality of collective action for the
common good. The blind logic of the market resists a rapid energy
transformation away from fossil fuel dependence in intrinsic contradiction of
ecological rationality.
The point is not to indict “bad” ecocidal capitalists,
as opposed to “good” green capitalists; the fault lies in a system rooted in
ruthless competition and a race for short-term profit that destroys nature’s
balance. The environmental challenge—to build an alternative system that
reflects the common good in its institutional DNA—becomes inextricably linked
to the socialist challenge.
That challenge
requires building what E. P. Thompson termed a “moral economy” founded on non-monetary
and extra-economic, social-ecological principles and governed through
democratic decision-making processes.[11]
Far
more than incremental reform, what is needed is the emergence of a social and
ecological civilization that brings forth a new energy structure and
post-consumerist set of values and way of life. Realizing this vision will not
be possible without public planning and control over the “means of production,”
the physical inputs used to produce economic value, such as facilities,
machinery, and infrastructure.
An ecological
politics that works within prevailing institutions and rules of the “market
economy” will fall short of meeting the profound environmental challenges
before us. Environmentalists who do not recognize how “productivism” flows from
the logic of profit are destined to fail—or, worse, to become absorbed by the
system. Examples abound. The lack of a coherent anti-capitalist posture led
most of the European Green parties—notably, in France, Germany, Italy, and
Belgium—to become mere “eco-reformist” partners in the social-liberal
management of capitalism by center-left governments.
Of course,
nature did not fare any better under Soviet-style “socialism” than under
capitalism. Indeed, that is one of the reasons ecosocialism carries a very
different program and vision from the so-called “actually existing socialism”
of the past. Since the roots of the ecological problem are systemic,
environmentalism needs to challenge the prevailing capitalist system, and that
means taking seriously the twenty-first-century synthesis of ecology and
socialism—ecosocialism.
Why
Socialists Need to Be Environmentalists
The survival of
civilized society, and perhaps much of life on Planet Earth, is at stake. A
socialist theory, or movement, that does not integrate ecology as a central
element in its program and strategy is anachronistic and irrelevant.
Climate change
represents the most threatening expression of the planetary ecological crisis,
posing a challenge without historical precedent. If global temperatures are
allowed to exceed pre-industrial levels by more than 2° C, scientists project
increasingly dire consequences, such as a rise in the sea level so large that
it would risk submerging most maritime towns, from Dacca in Bangladesh to
Amsterdam, Venice or New York.
Large-scale desertification, disturbance of the
hydrological cycle and agricultural output, more frequent and extreme weather
events, and species loss all loom. We’re already at 1° C. At what temperature
increase—5, 6, or 7° C—will we reach a tipping point beyond which the planet
cannot support civilized life or even becomes uninhabitable?
Particularly
worrisome is the fact that the impacts of climate change are accumulating at a
much faster pace than predicted by climate scientists, who—like almost all
scientists—tend to be highly cautious. The ink no sooner dries on an
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report when increasing climate
impacts make it seem too optimistic. Where once the emphasis was on what will
happen in the distant future, attention has turned increasingly to what we face
now and in the coming years.
Some socialists
acknowledge the need to incorporate ecology, but object to the term
“ecosocialism,” arguing that socialism already includes ecology, feminism,
antiracism, and other progressive fronts. However, the term ecosocialism,
by suggesting a decisive change in socialist ideas, carries important political
significance.
First, it reflects a new understanding of capitalism as a system
based not only on exploitation but also on destruction—the massive
destruction of the conditions for life on the planet. Second, ecosocialism
extends the meaning of socialist transformation beyond a change in ownership to
a civilizational transformation of the productive apparatus,
the patterns of consumption, and the whole way of life. Third, the new term
underscores the critical view it embraces of the twentieth-century experiments
in the name of socialism.
Twentieth-century
socialism, in its dominant tendencies (social democracy and Soviet-style
communism), was, at best, inattentive to the human impact on the environment
and, at worst, outright dismissive. Governments adopted and adapted the Western
capitalist productive apparatus in a headlong effort to “develop,” while
largely oblivious of the profound negative costs in the form of environmental
degradation.
The Soviet
Union is a perfect example. The first years after the October Revolution saw an
ecological current develop, and a number of measures to protect the environment
were, in fact, enacted. But by the late 1920s, with the process of Stalinist
bureaucratization underway, an environmentally heedless productivism was being
imposed in industry and agriculture by totalitarian methods, while ecologists
were marginalized or eliminated. The 1986 Chernobyl accident stands as a dramatic
emblem of the disastrous long-term consequences.
Changing who
owns property without changing how that property is managed is a dead-end.
Socialism must place democratic management and reorganization of the productive
system at the heart of the transformation, along with a firm commitment to
ecological stewardship. Not socialism or ecology alone, but ecosocialism.
Ecosocialism
and a Great Transition
The struggle
for green socialism in the long term requires fighting for concrete and urgent
reforms in the near term. Without illusions about the prospects for a “clean
capitalism,” the movement for deep change must try to reduce the risks to
people and planet, while buying time to build support for a more fundamental
shift. In particular, the battle to force the powers that be to drastically
reduce greenhouse gas emissions remains a key front, along with local efforts
to shift toward agroecological methods, cooperative solar energy, and community
management of resources.
Such concrete,
immediate struggles are important in and of themselves because partial
victories are vital for combatting environmental deterioration and despair
about the future. For the longer term, these campaigns can help raise
ecological and socialist consciousness and promote activism from below. Both
awareness and self-organization are decisive preconditions and foundations for
radically transforming the world system. The amplification of thousands of
local and partial efforts into an overarching systemic global movement forges
the path to a Great Transition: a new society and mode of life.
This vision
infuses the popular idea of a “movement of movements,” which arose out of the
global justice movement and the World Social Forums and which for many years
has fostered the convergence of social and environmental movements in a common
struggle. Ecosocialism is but one current within this larger stream, with no
pretense that it is “more important” or “more revolutionary” than others. Such
a competitive claim counterproductively breeds polarization when what is needed
is unity.
Rather,
ecosocialism aims to contribute to a shared ethos embraced by the various
movements for a Great Transition. Ecosocialism sees itself as part of an
international movement: since global ecological, economic, and social crises
know no borders, the struggle against the systemic forces driving these crises
must also be globalized. Many significant intersections are surfacing between
ecosocialism and other movements, including efforts to link eco-feminism and
ecosocialism as convergent and complementary.[12]
The
climate justice movement brings antiracism and ecosocialism together in the
struggle against the destruction of the living conditions of communities
suffering discrimination. In indigenous movements, some leaders are
ecosocialists, while, in turn, many ecosocialists sees the indigenous way of
life, grounded in communitarian solidarity and respect for Mother Nature, as an
inspiration for the ecosocialist perspective. Similarly, ecosocialism finds
voice within peasant, trade-union, degrowth, and other movements.
The gathering
movement of movements seeks system change, convinced that another world is
possible beyond commodification, environmental destruction, exploitation, and
oppression. The power of entrenched ruling elites is undeniable, and the forces
of radical opposition remain weak. But they are growing, and stand as our hope
for halting the catastrophic course of capitalist “growth.” Ecosocialism
contributes an important perspective for nurturing understanding and strategy
for this movement for a Great Transition.
Walter Benjamin
defined revolutions not as the locomotive of history, à la Marx, but as
humanity’s reaching for the emergency brake before the train falls into the
abyss. Never have we needed more to reach as one for that lever and lay new
track to a different destination. The idea and practice of ecosocialism can
help guide this world-historic project.
Notes
[1] Joel Kovel, Enemy of
Nature: The End of Capitalism or the End of the World? (New
York, Zed Books, 2002), 215.
[2] Via Campesina, a worldwide
network of peasant movements, has long argued for this type of agricultural
transformation. See https://viacampesina.org/en/.
[3] Ernest Mandel, Power and
Money: A Marxist Theory of Bureaucracy (London, Verso, 1992), 206.
[4] The opposition between “having”
and “being” is often discussed in the Manuscripts of 1844. On
free time as the foundation of the socialist “Kingdom of Freedom,” see Karl
Marx, Das Kapital, Volume III, Marx-Engels-Werke series, vol. 25
(1884; Berlin: Dietz Verlag Berline, 1981), 828.
[5] Paul Burkett, Ecological
Economics: Toward a Red and Green Political Economy (Chicago,
Haymarket Books, 2009), 329.
[6] Karl Marx, Das Kapital,
Volume 1, Marx-Engels-Werke series, vol. 23 (1867; Berlin: Dietz Verlag Berlin,
1981), 528-530.
[7] See, for example, Manuel
Sacristan, Pacifismo, Ecología y Política Alternativa (Barcelona:
Icaria, 1987); Raymond Williams, Socialism and Ecology (London:
Socialist Environment and Resources Association, 1982); André Gorz, Ecology
as Politics (Boston, South End Press, 1979); Barry Commoner, The
Closing Circle: Man, Nature, and Technology (New York: Random House,
1971).
[8] “An Ecosocialist Manifesto,”
2001, http://environment-ecology.com/political-ecology/436-an-ecosocialist-manifesto.html;
“Belem Ecosocialist Declaration,” December 16, 2008, http://climateandcapitalism.com/2008/12/16/belem-ecosocialist-declaration-a-call-for-signatures/.
[9] See https://www.greattransition.org/explore/scenarios for
an overview of the Policy Reform scenario and other global scenarios.
[10] United Nations Environment
Programme, The Emissions Gap Report 2017 (Nairobi: UNEP,
2017). For an overview of the report, see https://news.un.org/en/story/2017/10/569672-un-sees-worrying-gap-between-paris-climate-pledges-and-emissions-cuts-needed.
[11] E. P. Thompson “The Moral
Economy of the English Crowd in the Eighteenth Century,”
Past &
Present, no. 50
(February 1971): 76-136
[12] See Ariel Salleh’s Ecofeminism
as Politics (New York: Zed Books, 1997), or the recent issue of Capitalism,
Nature and Socialism (29, no. 1: 2018) on “Ecofeminism against Capitalism,”
with essays by Terisa Turner, Ana Isla, and others.
