This is a response to an article by Michael Löwy on the necessity of combining struggles for social and ecological well-being. For context, check out the original article.
Michael Löwy’s essay on ecosocialism brings up several vital topics that prompt us to have a deeper discussion and form a more detailed understanding of the outline of a sustainable society.
Envisioning and Building a Deeper Democracy
Early on, Löwy states that “The core of ecosocialism is the concept of democratic ecological planning.” It’s great that this vision incorporates a much more participatory democracy, as this often seems understated in ecological activism. Attention is regularly paid to the fossil fuel industry’s role in dictating various priorities within national and state politics, and activist campaigns often revolve around gaining support for climate-friendlier legislation—useful to be sure, but there is much less emphasis on establishing the constitutive pieces of democracy like a culture of critical thinking or public campaign financing. These things are de-facto left to those who think of themselves as “democracy activists.” But how many people describe themselves this way? How much activism is dedicated to creating a truly democratic society? A major part of the challenge is questioning the assumptions and cultural messages suggesting that the present society is “what democracy is.” Attempts to envision a more broadly democratic society are an important contribution of ecosocialists like Löwy. Climate change and other existential ecological crises demand large-scale changes to society that are only conceivable if we live in a society in which citizens, not corporations, make fundamental decisions. If ecological activists do not involve themselves in fashioning a much more functional democracy, including the ability of the public to legislate their country’s sustainable level of consumption and a rapid energy transition (and the accompanying economic changes that would be needed) as a binding national plan, then our needs will be constrained by the narrow limits of our present “democracy.”
With that in mind, democratizing money creation and investment must be recognized as an essential part of ecological activism. Löwy writes that “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.” As Mary Mellor’s work shows, just a decade ago trillions of debt-free dollars were created by central banks to bail out the private banks whose recklessness led to the Great Recession, while populations across the world were subject to austerity and told that there wasn’t enough money to finance public needs. Though unlimited sums can be deployed to aid those in power, today the public is told repeatedly that society simply cannot afford to finance the rapid transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. The economic instability inherent in the current financial system (i.e. the sort that could lead to recession and derail a national or international energy transition) and the control by private banks over what society invests in are conditions that, if left out of ecological activists’ analysis, would seem to present fundamental barriers to any large-scale economic transformation. Addressing climate change and other ecological crises requires that democracy extend to money and finance.
A central challenge will be finding balance throughout the process of establishing a much more democratic society. As Herman Daly points out, it doesn’t make sense for the public to vote on the smallest details of everyday life. And yet, we are experiencing existential crises because the public, which tends to prioritize values such as care for others and living meaningfully over maximizing short-term profit, has little to no say over the structure of the economy—a deficit of democracy. Clearly the public must gain the power to make fundamental decisions about how society works, and that will require a certain amount of knowledge about our crises as a prerequisite. But finding the balance between this hard-won freedom and the ability to spend one’s life outside the voting booth is part of the transition process. Delegation of tasks through representatives is a way to make political work more efficient, but vigilance and accountability mechanisms are essential for oversight and adjustment. Daly makes a strong case for how markets could serve the public as another form of delegation, and it may be possible for other institutional changes to eliminate the anti-democratic and anti-ecological characteristics that markets currently exhibit.
Foregrounding Ecological Limits
Turning to the “ecological” part of “democratic ecological planning” at the “heart of ecosocialism,” I believe certain ideas should feature more prominently. Foremost is a discussion of limits to growth. Löwy writes that “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.’” However, the ecological crises we face are all rooted in overconsumption—“excessive consumption in the abstract.” While waste and fashionable consumption are clearly areas that can be targeted to reduce human demands on this finite planet, the ultimate goal is to attain a level of consumption that meets the population’s basic needs while avoiding the destruction of the natural systems necessary for survival—and this seems likely to fall below what’s achievable by eliminating waste.
Another important discussion is the need to stabilize the human population and allow it to gradually shrink over time. Löwy quotes Barry Commoner, who emphasized that “the capitalist system and its technology—and not population growth—was responsible for the destruction of the environment.” But total consumption is a product of both consumption per person and the number of people. When breaking down carbon emissions trends, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change identifies economic and population growth as the fundamental drivers of emissions. Population growth in wealthy countries increases throughput today, and if we aim for a tomorrow defined both by sustainable and equitable levels of per capita consumption, then we must recognize the need for a gradual reduction in population size.
Incorporating Ecological Economics and Energy Literacy
If the goal of ecosocialism is to achieve a sustainable economy, it seems to me that it should take some direction from the discipline of ecological economics. Strikingly, though the essay invokes “the growth question,” there is no discussion of a steady state, non-growing economy as a necessary goal of ecosocialist work. It shouldn’t go unnoticed that though we face several ecological crises (a sixth mass extinction event, eroding topsoil, freshwater depletion, etc.), only climate change has any semblance of a social movement addressing it in the US, and those committing themselves to creating a sustainable society don’t universally recognize the insights of ecological economics or a steady state economy as a centerpiece of their efforts. It’s true that the analysis and ideas within ecological economics tend not to sufficiently incorporate an explicit discussion of power and the opposition that elites would present to the realization of a steady state economy. This is where the discussions and attitudes generated by ecosocialists and other activist groups can provide a necessary complement, as well as the means of implementing these ideas (and keeping ecological economics from being a largely academic tradition). These groups need one another.
One last, essential topic not discussed is energy analysis. Work from Charles Hall and others, further developed for a public audience by Richard Heinberg, suggests that renewable energy is fundamentally different than fossil fuels and will provoke changes in how we organize society. Perhaps most significantly, studies of “energy returned on energy invested” (EROEI) suggest that wind, solar, and other forms of renewable energy yield significantly less net energy (what we can use to power economic activity besides generating energy, itself) and can only support a smaller, non-growing economy. This would also mean that human work would have to substitute for certain tasks previously reliant on fossil fuel energy, preventing a drastic reduction in working hours in an all-renewable society. For reasons of energy, it may not be the case that “ecosocialism heralds a substantial increase in free time.” But the better able we are of foreseeing the challenges of the energy transition, the more prepared the public will be to deal with those challenges and the likelier that the transition is completed.
Firmness, Flexibility, and Clarity in Movement-Building
I’ll end with a few comments on firmness and flexibility, and about the role of education in activism. Many responses to Löwy’s essay call for more detail, either about the type of society ecosocialism ultimately aims to achieve or how to get there, or about ecosocialism’s stance towards varied issues of oppression or ways of thinking. Surely there is some threshold level of detail that promotes or inspires action around a vision, and yet it is often contention about the details that keep those who broadly agree from working more closely together. Clearly there are some aspects of our vision for change that must remain firm in order to have integrity and meaning, while other aspects should be kept flexible in order to promote collaboration and resist splintering, and to deal with unforeseeable challenges as they arise. Those who believe that a mass movement is necessary to accomplish a Great Transition may be served by thinking about these questions.
I believe that clarity is a characteristic of strong movements, and in the interests of clarity we should leave aside labels except where they serve a clear purpose. Instead, let’s be explicit and encourage direct discussion about our ultimate goals. Work to be aware of and open about your own ideology. If you’re committed to a certain principle or solving a problem, try to be open to all evidence that may impact these things and change your mind accordingly. Being too rigid, too narrowly self-defined and not open to change, or believing that broadening a movement’s vision would dilute its focus are all tendencies that threaten to keep activists’ sights aimed lower than what our crises demand.
My concern is that too much rigidity will prevent a more transformative vision from being adopted by current activists. What is the vehicle for the types of ideas expressed in this essay? There is a growing democratic socialist movement, so it would seem that the more this movement can be infused with an analysis of ecological crises, the more likely these ideas are to be implemented. Environmental justice groups have potential, but their sphere of concern will have to expand beyond local or regional issues to encompass larger-scale goals. The climate justice movement may be another vehicle for a broad transformation of the sort Löwy describes, but this depends on activists recognizing that addressing climate change requires us to create a non-growing economy and a truly self-governing society. Degrowth is a developing movement that appears to have the broad vision demanded by these crises, but currently too few adherents.
If a sufficiently powerful rationale for far-reaching change is not presented or if existing movements define themselves too narrowly to accept a broad vision of social transformation, the ideas presented here will not change society. They will remain ideas.
The Central Role of Education in Activism
“What guarantee is there that the people will make ecologically sound decisions?” Löwy asks. “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 achievement, through struggle, self-education, and social experience, of a high level of socialist and ecological consciousness.”
Education is a central task of activists. In order to build a movement autonomous enough to transform society, those seeking this transformation must cultivate individuals who understand how our various ecological crises reflect humanity consuming beyond natural limits. Current ecological activists don’t see an absolute need for a non-growing economy—this must change. I continue to feel that a significant number of ordinary citizens must also develop a healthy obsession with creating an authentically democratic society. And the better we can foresee the challenges associated with the transition, both the inherent difficulties and those purposely created by elites who seek to maintain the status quo, the more likely we are to make it happen. An independent system of popular education appears to be an essential movement institution.
We must develop within ourselves and others the autonomy to overcome the limits placed upon us by those in power. The US has not yet seen an informed, critically thinking public organized enough to challenge for authentic representation. Let’s see how responsive our existing decision-making structures can be in the context of this public autonomy, and which structures are simply anti-democratic. Let’s reveal the limits of our present “democracy” and, if we find that these limits keep us from the social transformation needed to preserve the natural world and the life it makes possible, fashion new institutions with a steady hand.