TO THE GREENS #3
Toward Ecosocialism
The response to my last communication, "Beyond Populism," was substantial and gratifying. It kicked off a lively debate that is still swirling as of this writing--which is the source of gratification. We may--given the limits of our knowledge, must--differ in many ways. But one principle should be held by all: long live debate! There may be no absolute truths, but there is a moving toward the truth in spirited dialogue and argumentation. So in that very same spirit, let me take the next step in the reasoning. Unfortunately, the sheer number of reactions to the previous pieces makes it impossible to respond individually to the many issues raised. I will, however, try to incorporate some of the themes in what follows. As some of you know, I have been at work on a book, THE ENEMY OF NATURE, in which these matters will be addressed in some detail. I'll also try to respond in further communications raised by these issues, although as I am setting off on a speaking tour this week, it will be difficult to do justice to their many-sidedness. Bearing in mind these limits, here is an outline of what I see as going beyond populism.
Let me say first of all that the critique of populism was not done in the spirit of trashing it but of literally going beyond, which doesn't imply a rejection but a building-upon. My point is that insofar as populists think that it is sufficient to regulate big corporations, or to project a future in which small capitalists are the dominant type, they are betraying their very own splendid ideals and history. These kinds of betrayals have indeed happened in the history of populism (as they have in just about every worthwhile ideal, including, most certainly, socialism); and in every case, we need to learn what went wrong and to overcome it. In the case of populism, I would submit, what went wrong has generally been the refusal to extend the point of attack to capital itself. From this failing the always-latent personalist logic of populism begins to take over, with the potentials for scapegoating, etc, now activated.
I don't think any less of a critique needs to be offered with respect to socialism as well. It, too, has to be "gone beyond," although the fundamental impulse, to supersede capitalism, must be preserved. Here are my thoughts on the direction this should take.
The term, "ecosocialism," indicates what I have in mind as the model of a just and ecologically sustainable society. Some greens have objected by claiming that socialism cannot be paired in any way with the green outlook on the world, as though being green were some kind of immortal essence whose difference from socialism were fixed for all time and self-explanatory to boot. For many, the word, "socialism," is irrevocably stained with the failures of twentieth century movements under that name, variously described as statist, centralized and authoritarian in character. This set of failings is often coupled with a statement to the effect that the American people are turned off by the word, socialism, and won't have anything to do with a movement that uses it.
There are a bunch of assumptions embedded in these objections:
--they falsely assume that the twentieth century regimes that called themselves socialist, like the USSR, had a monopoly on what socialism means. This overlooks the fact that in virtually every case, the statism, centralization, authoritarianism, etc, were the results of trying to achieve capitalist ends through socialist means--in other words, the failed socialisms didn't believe deeply enough in the ideal of superseding capital, or were otherwise blocked from implementing this (as by ferocious attacks by imperialism, etc);
--they fail to note that the core definition of socialism, certainly that developed by Marx, has nothing to do with statism, centralization, or authoritarianism, and that its necessary implication was the overcoming of capitalism through the full extension of democracy to the economic sphere and beyond;
--they forget that the collective consciousness of a people is itself constructed, and open to growth and change. The word, socialism, may be contaminated with odious connotations. However, put to people whether they would like to live in a "cooperative commonwealth," released from cutthroat competition, where basic needs are socially guaranteed and where they can freely develop their individuality in a rich network of associations--and see whether their allergic response was to the word, socialism, or to the ideas behind it.
So why don't we just call the goal a cooperative commonwealth, as many democratic socialists effectively did during the last century? Simple: because the idea is "ecosocialism," and not just socialism, and because the term, "eco-cooperative commonwealth," goes nowhere. For we are at a launching point, that demands the creation of something really, radically new, a "next-epoch" socialism. The focus of "first-epoch" socialism was labor. Ecosocialism must be open to nature along with labor, which is to say, must take a radically ecological form only dimly perceived by the architects of first-epoch socialism. The prefix, "eco," therefore, is not just a figure of speech, but indicates a qualitatively new project. To foreclose this exploration by recycling objections to first-epoch socialism is plain intellectual laziness.
The breakup of first-epoch socialism left a unipolar world and created the ground for next epoch socialism, ecosocialism. Because capital is now global, it calls forth global resistance, in two senses--from all over the world, and to all of its forms. Socialism is the word for that which sets itself as the surpassing of capitalism. If you believe that capital is a cancer, then socialism emerges as the logic of overcoming capital; and if you recognize the cancer as afflicting global ecologies, and understand the failings of first-epoch socialism, then you embark on the building of ecosocialism.
This is what stands beyond the necessary but limited confrontation with capital's corporate armies. It is what makes ecosocialism an affirmative project beyond the politics of resentment.
It is also radically difficult to envision, given how mired our world is in the ways of capital. That is why a degree of utopian thought must be integral to ecosocialism, so that we do not rest with simple reformist extrapolation from the present. Yet there are also principles of transformation that need to be kept in mind:
1. Ecosocialism, being socialism, must incorporate basic changes in the class structure. Yes, it must include the notion of public ownership of productive resources. The earth should not be the property of the few, but the collective body of society. And society will not consist of a propertied class ruling over a mass of disinherited peons who only have their labor power for sale on the capitalist market--because the capitalist market will no longer exist. For this reason, ecosocialism takes its stand with all efforts to empower and liberate labor around the world. The realization of these goals will require tremendous ingenuity and creativity. But unless the goals are articulated, we have nothing to aim for.
2. Ecosocialism, being ecological, must interpret its surpassing of capital in terms of the "limits to growth," that is, it cannot, as did traditional socialism, try to maximize the productive forces. This engages a thoroughgoing transformation so that we live lightly and ecologically on the earth. The core principle is to set the goal of transforming quantitative relations to qualitative ones, and away from treating people and other living creatures as mere objects, to regarding them as active, self-constituting subjects. As an integral part of this, ecosocialism will attend to the need structures of the population, in order to develop a society beyond consumerism. One does this, in general, through the development of active powers of self-definition, since the essence of consumerism is creating passively manipulated characters who crave fulfillment through commodities.
3. While large-scale enterprises will remain in ecosocialism, its basic principle is antithetical to the centralization of power. Ecosocialism does not dissolve the state, but its guiding principle is the full democratization of public life. We should learn to think of democracy and ecological relations as two sides of the same process.
3. Because these goals are so remote, it is essential that we spell out intermediate steps that are practicable in the here and now while yet moving society in the direction of ecosocialism. I would call this the principle of Prefiguration; it comprises the set of transforms which comprise the actual stuff of political life and the content of campaigns and platforms. There are two tightly connected sides to this:
First, everything that builds what is called "civil society" is prefigurative of ecosocialism. The fatal statism and bureaucratic ossification of first-epoch socialisms were largely the result of having to begin the revolution under chaotic conditions with a population ill-equipped to democratically self-manage the economy and society. In the prefigurative phase of ecosocialism--which is to say, in the here and now--a prime task is to educate the population into the ways of autonomous development. Obviously, this places a great premium on the educational process itself and the struggles for democratic media. But it is equally the ecosocialist ground of struggles against racism and sexism, for the rights of gays and other alternative sexualites, for the rights as well of migrant communities and for the dissolution of the prison-industrial complex. The goal of a socialism that is non-authoritarian and fully democratic is integral with the need to overcome all forms of injustice and the mutilation of human beings. Those forms of personal empowerment that go no further than the shallow and conformist schemata of identity politics, are here revealed as necessary prefigurations of an ecological socialism. We fight for human rights not only because these are good in themselves, but because human beings so empowered form the ground of a society capable of self-management and democratically able to resist authoritarian and bureaucratic forms, i.e., centralism.
Second, and closely related within the productive processes that underlie the making of the world, we prefiguratively attend to what Marx called the "use-values" of commodities. Here is where the qualitative dimension is anchored, and where, therefore, the struggle to break down capital is lodged at an everyday level, one that involves aesthetic, spiritual and communal dimensions that have been suppressed or distorted under capitalism. This, broadly speaking, opens onto the whole set of green goals such as taking on the polluters, stopping the introduction of genetically modified organisms, fighting for worker's safety and health care as a human right, and, of course, for organic farms and community gardens--but it does so in the context of a comprehensive attack on the capitalist system, which it identifies as the common source of these threats to the integrity of human beings and nature.
To me, the green parties themselves are prefigurative of ecosocialism, since they arise as the particular political reaction to capital's ecological crisis. But there is no inevitability to prefiguration, and whether that connection gets developed depends upon the emergence of a consciousness within the green movement that ecosocialism is in fact its destiny. This depends in part upon whether the ingrained prejudice against all forms of socialism can be overcome. That's a decision for the greens themselves to make. But whatever greens decide, there is a historical logic unfolding. To paraphrase the great Marxist revolutionary Rosa Luxemburg, a choice lies before us: ecosocialism or barbarism--or worse, ecocatastrophe.
Joel Kovel Candidate for President, Green Party
To Build an Ecological Society beyond Capitalism For the People For the Earth
www.greenplace.org www.greens.org/ny/kovel/ 858-457-5616 jkovel at prodigy.net
8889 Caminito Plaza Centro #7204 La Jolla, CA 92122