Problems with ecosocialism

Ecosocialism seems to be increasingly regarded as the most promising way forward or even as essential in order to avoid a climate and ecological catastrophe.

However, ecosocialism means different things to different people, and it is not always clear what meaning is intended.

This article critically reviews some of the different meanings and concludes that ecosocialism risks being too narrowly ‘socialist’ to gain mass political support while at the same time tending to subordinate the ‘ecological’ to the ‘social’.

Classless

What is ecosocialism? Here are some of the answers that can be found in the literature:

Hans Baer, in his book Democratic eco-socialism as a real utopia, describes ecosocialism as a global system that is "highly democratic rather than authoritarian, that ensures that all people have access to basic resources, and that is at the same time environmentally sustainable and recognises that we live on a fragile planet with limited resources."

David Klein, in System change not climate change, says: "Ecosocialism is democratic and calls for sustainable production based on human needs rather than profit. Of critical importance, ecosocialism proposes a steady state economy that does not require growth."

In a recent issue of the journal Capitalism Nature Socialism, Michael Albert sees ecosocialism as a broad political approach that encompasses "the priority of use-value over exchange-value; collective ownership and planning to shape and constrain markets; 'contraction and convergence' in consumption levels between the global north and south."

In the same issue, Salvatore Engel-Di Mauro states that ecosocialism has "socialist objectives and concerns over the state of ecosystems and environment", and ‘socialist’ means "anyone striving for the realisation of state-free, classless society."

Profit

In an edition of the same journal in 2020, Samuel Day Fassbinder suggested that: "A meaningful definition [of ecosocialism] might center upon a sustainable, democratic society with public control over the means of production."

Michael Löwy, in his book on Ecosocialism in 2015, conceptualised it as "an ecologically rational society founded on democratic control, social equality, and the predominance of use value… This conception assumes collective ownership of the means of production, democratic planning that makes it possible for society to define the goals of investment and production, and a new technological structure of the productive forces."

The first of these interpretations is a good description of the social system that most, if not all, readers of The Ecologist would like to see, but it is not what is usually meant by ecosocialism.

It does not mention abolishing capitalism or the state or social classes or establishing public ownership and control. It leaves open the possibility that the current capitalist system could be reformed, making it more democratic, fair and sustainable.

The second meaning comes closest to the first, with the addition of the old socialist slogan of production for need not profit. However, this ignores the capacity of capitalism to provide for need as well as profit. The nature of the democracy involved is also unclear.

Ecological

All the meanings except Engel-Di Mauro's emphasise collective, public or democratic ownership and control but they do not explain why this is necessary to solve the climate crisis.

For example, Klein simply declares: ‘To accomplish this, it will be necessary to socialize virtually all large-scale industry." Albert asserts: "Ecosocialists convincingly demonstrate that capitalism is incapable of resolving the climate and broader earth system crises in a genuinely sustainable - let alone just - manner." 

Engel-Di Mauro's interpretation is different in that it links ecosocialism directly with an end to state and class power.

The third, fourth and final meanings prioritise the ‘social’ over the ‘ecological’. The third one does not explicitly include the ecological dimension, so it is socialist but not ecosocialist - although of course a contraction of consumption in the global North will bring ecological benefits.

Overarching

The fourth definition appears to subordinate safeguarding life on earth to achieving the abolition of states and classes. In reality, however, it is probably compatible with working with non-socialists who have similar objectives and concerns about climate change and ecocide. The final meaning leaves open the question of what is ‘ecologically rational’.

Assuming the first meaning as our overarching goal, we can ask what might be the most feasible and effective ways to achieve that goal.

If we further assume that living sustainably involves using only renewable energy, reusable or recyclable materials, and agroecological methods, we can ask to what extent other ecosocialist objectives might be necessary for that sustainable living. For example, what is the role of government in transitioning to a fully renewable energy system - if any?

Here I focus only on the practical limitations of an approach that gives overriding priority to overthrowing capitalism even if only as a means to achieving our overarching goal.

Building a mass movement: a way forward?

Arguably, what is missing from these understandings of ecosocialism is an account of the processes through which it can be achieved.

Albert, for example, is critical of those ecosocialists who offer only idealistic visions of a future society and wish lists for how to get there, or who "neglect difficult strategic questions, trade-offs and dangers that would likely emerge during the transition process and beyond." 

However, his preferred ‘realist’ approach is itself largely speculative and contentious, especially on the issues of ‘net energy decline’, ‘green jobs’ and the debt burden of a radical Green New Deal, and it is arguable that he exaggerates the technical and financial difficulties involved in transitioning to ecosocialism.

We can all agree with him that, for a realistic transition, it is essential "to engage in a prolonged process of mass movement organizing and struggle on the conjoined terrains of political-economy, culture, and public discourse." But exaggerating the difficulties seems likely only to discourage people from joining such a movement.

Decarbonise

In his latest book, Future on Fire, the ecosocialist David Camfield also argues that our only hope for a safe future is through mass social movements and he has much to say about the nature of the movement that is needed.

This can be summarised as: sustained collective action, a diversity of people, appealing to a wide spectrum of public opinion, making clear demands for justice, remaining independent of the state and "fundamentally extra-parliamentary".

Rather than ‘governing power’ (the traditional goal of socialists), his aim is for the movement "to develop the power to force governments to enact the climate justice measures that are needed". Building a mass social movement is therefore seen as the critical task for ecosocialists.

The foreword to Camfield's book by Dharna Noor is refreshingly clear about what these measures include: "We must phase out coal, oil, and gas at once, reshape our transit systems and housing plans, design a more humane and sustainable food system, decarbonise every sector of the economy."

Repression

This level of specificity, however, is missing from the rest of Camfield book, which mentions only "a just and rapid shift away from fossil fuels and from other sources of GHG pollution, accompanied with a range of actions to draw down GHG levels in ways consistent with climate justice principles, including planting trees on a very large scale" as well as actions to reverse biodiversity loss, ocean acidification, pandemics, and other serious ecological problems.

Consequently, the movement seems to lack a technological or financial dimension - for example, it could be pointed out that it is not possible, even at a national level, to phase out all fossil fuels at once, because of our continued dependence on gas boilers, internal combustion engines, cement and steel, artificial fertilisers, plastics, and so on.

While Albert worries about an imaginary future of ‘authoritarian ecosocialism’, where an electorally successful red-green movement institutionalises state of emergency provisions, Camfield is concerned to condemn actually existing ‘elitist radicalism’ because of its potential to harm and undermine the building of a mass movement.

Elitist radicals are "a highly committed small minority" who attack corporate or state targets and may use violence. The term 'attack' as used here does not mean a violent act.

Camfield states - but without providing any supporting evidence - that "attacks by small groups won’t win urgently needed climate justice reforms, although they will lead to more intense state repression that will hamper movement-building work".

Extraction

In the court of public opinion, however, things are not so straightforward: it all depends on the nature of the attack, the motives for the attack and the extent of public sympathy for the attackers.

If we are really in an emergency, which is recognised by most people, and the attack addresses that emergency in some way, then it could attract more public support and it could achieve something.

Camfield is particularly sceptical about tactics of violence against property such as those advocated by Andreas Malm, in his book How to blow up a pipeline.

He argues that: "Attacks on pipelines and other fossil fuel targets by small groups of activists might hurt the profits of some firms, but they would cause little disruption to the regular functioning of capitalist society.

"However, they would certainly lead to more state repression against the climate movement - and not just the groups of activists working secretly to carry out vandalism and sabotage.

"This would make it more difficult to organize effective kinds of mass direct action like strikes, occupations, blockades, and incursions that disrupt fossil fuel extraction or distribution, such as the 2016 Ende Gelände anti-coal mass actions in Germany that Malm rightly praises."

Struggle

It is worth noting that Malm does not call for activists to blow up pipelines in his book. Instead, the acts of direct action he discusses including deflating the tyres of highly polluting cars. Interestingly, some time after the book was published some activists, including in the UK, did exactly that.

But Camfield goes on to suggest that these activists risk falling into elitist radicalism. The possibility that the movement might be fully supporting these small activist groups does not seem to have occurred to him.

And, for the sake of argument, if his scepticism were well founded, then it would appear to follow that one should be sceptical also about mass action insofar as it can lead to increased state repression.

A historical example would be anti-union laws introduced in response to the failure of the miners’ strike in the 1980s. Today we see the erosion of the right to protest in response to recent mass movements.

Germany is still mining coal and Ende Gelände are still fighting against this, so one could question how effective this struggle has really been. But such scepticism seems likely to lead only to inaction and despair, not the hope that Camfield rightly wants to encourage.

Strikes

Camfield also criticises Extinction Rebellion’s strategy. This has some validity in that there is no magic figure for the proportion of the population who need to be in the mass movement in order to be successful, nor is there any reason to suppose that an unelected citizens’ assembly would have any more influence over government than an elected one.

He could have added that XR’s self-sacrificing approach of courting arrest and even imprisonment is of value only insofar as it increases support for the movement and/or for the movement’s objectives, and it remains unclear how effective this approach has been so far.

However, he does not mention XR’s increasing involvement in a wide range of struggles, particularly in solidarity with workers and anti-racist groups - a shift of approach that chimes better with his own preferred strategy for movement building.

Workplace organising and unions are important because collective action by workers, particularly strikes, is of proven effectiveness, e.g. for higher pay or improved working conditions. Workers’ support is of course essential for achieving a just transition.

Whither ecosocialism?

We are left with a confusing and somewhat disappointing picture. We know that radical social changes are needed over the course of time, but what, exactly?

We know that emergency measures have to be taken immediately, but what?

Effective policy on climate and ecology requires mass political support, and that in turn requires popular economic and social programmes on social justice as well as climate justice - programmes that the public see to be either necessary or desirable.

As discussed by Albert, some ecosocialists have tried to piggyback Green New Deals, but none has yet formulated a programme that has been demonstrated to have mass support.

I suggest the following reasons for this. First, most people do not subscribe to socialism and are not convinced that the nationalisation of much of private industry is either necessary or desirable.

Reform

Second, although most people would agree that capitalism has serious flaws, they are not convinced that it is either necessary or desirable to abolish it altogether.

Third, a movement only of ‘exploited and oppressed people’ as described by Camfield is just not big enough to solve the climate crisis: an effective mass movement to reverse climate change must engage with all sections of society.

Fourth, if we are to have any kind of stable future in this world, ecosocialists have no choice but to work with non-socialists, inside, outside and across political parties, building a highly inclusive climate and ecological movement, involving democratic participation and action at all levels and in all forms of social organisation.

To conclude, I would recommend, as a minimum, a focus on appropriate regulation - nationalisation may or may not be appropriate - of fossil-fuel companies  and mandating a phasing out of emissions by 2030, combined with the provision of universal basic services including on housing, transport and food and a fair taxation system, including the taxing of carbon. Greater clarity on the reasons for democratic reform would also be helpful.

This Author

Peter Somerville is emeritus professor of social policy at the University of Lincoln.