October 19, 2011

Ecosocialism

From Monthly Review:

When we say revolution, we are talking about a profound change in the way humans relate to the earth, in how we produce and reproduce, in almost everything humans do and how we do it. What we're aiming for is not just a reorganization of capitalism, and not just changes in ownership, but for what Fred Magdoff, in an article in a recent issue of Monthly Review, calls "a truly ecological civilization -- one that exists in harmony with natural systems." Magdoff lists eight characteristics that such a civilization would have. It would:

•stop growing when basic human needs are satisfied;
•not entice people to consume more and more;
•protect natural life support systems and respect the limits to natural resources, taking into account needs of future generations;
•make decisions based on long-term societal/ecological needs, while not neglecting short-term needs of people;
•run as much as possible on current (including recent past) energy instead of fossil fuels;
•foster human characteristics and a culture of cooperation, sharing, reciprocity, and responsibility to neighbors and community;
•make possible the full development of human potential, and;
•promote truly democratic political and economic decision making for local, regional, and multiregional needs.

As Fred Magdoff says, a society with those characteristics would be "the opposite of capitalism in essentially all respects."

Read more here.
Posted by at
Labels: , , , ,

4 comments:

rich daniels said...

I have much respect for MR and for Magdoff, but his list of desirable traits fails to address the basic question, which cannot be evaded, how do we get from here to there? Or, as Lenin said, What is to be done? Trying to describe utopia is putting the cart before the horse, to say the least.

October 19, 2011 2:58 PM
rich daniels said...

I've now read the whole article, and I'm very sympathetic with both its analysis and its goals (as a hiker and an angler, I love the natural world). Still, I do not believe it is possible for human beings, human society, to live in harmony with nature. That seems to me a monumental error that could lead to unfortunate consequences. So there are problems. Still, there's much to recommend the article, and the mode of thought.

October 19, 2011 9:56 PM
strannik said...

I want to preface these remarks by saying that overall, I think this article did a fairly good job avoiding idealism.
Part of the issue with "eco-" ideologies is that they generally do a poor job at explaining what they mean by "harmony with nature" or "sustainability". Does living in harmony with nature mean eliminating all human environmental impacts? If so, I agree with Rich Daniels' criticism above. If not, then what does it mean, exactly?
More broadly, the term "basic human needs" gets bandied about a lot without a good definition. Is a refrigerator a basic human need? What about a microwave? Books? DVDs? Computers? Everyone would likely have a different list of "basic human needs".
As far as the energy question goes, two points: First, the article did not address the problem of power density and energy sprawl; wind and solar power systems take up a lot of space and provide little power. Committing vast tracts of land to inefficient wind and/or solar farms would have a dramatic ecological impact. Second, the standard climate models are not like the laws of mechanics, i.e. they could be subject to revision and even outright refutation. In fact, given the sheer complexity of the models, revision is likely. This does not mean that there is a climate conspiracy or that there is no warming or whatever. It does mean that we should respect that there is a range of scientific interpretations for the data at hand, and recognize that the bourgeoisie will try turn climate change (as a political, rather than scientific issue) to its own advantage. The "accept austerity for the good of the planet" argument is one example.

October 19, 2011 11:15 PM
blanco said...

Maybe there is a tipping point, maybe there is not. Maybe the Pebble Mine in the Bristol Bay watershed will damage the largest sockeye run in the world, maybe not. Maybe antibiotics and other chemicals not now and likely not ever tested for, released in water supplies, sprayed on farms and forests, and dumped in the ocean will cause health damage to humans and other species, maybe not. Maybe there will be a gradual degradation of life as we now know it, or knew it in 1950, and maybe there will not. How will we know? By prayer, by an economic ideology, by science (yes an ideology also, often in the service of capitalism, but yet still free enough to allow Marxists like Levins and Lewontin)?

October 22, 2011 9:07 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)