babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » humanities & science   » Ecosocialist Manifesto

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Ecosocialist Manifesto
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 22 September 2002 08:26 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The Ecosocialist Manifesto, by Joel Kovel and Michael Löwy. This text is a bit long.
----------------------------------------------
This document has been translated into French, Spanish and Japanese so far, and is circulating around the globe. If you support its argument and would like to be kept up-to-date on the Manifesto and/or contribute to its development, send an e-mail either to jkovel@prodigy.net, or WSheasby@cs.com. Thanks,


AN ECOSOCIALIST MANIFESTO


Introduction


The idea for this ecosocialist manifesto was jointly launched by Joel Kovel and Michael Lowy, at a September, 2001, workshop on ecology and socialism held at Vincennes, near Paris. We all suffer from a chronic case of Gramsci's paradox, of living in a time whose old order is dying (and taking civilization with it) while the new one does not seem able to be born. But at least it can be announced. The deepest shadow that hangs over us is neither terror, environmental collapse, nor global recession. It is the internalized fatalism that holds there is no possible alternative to capitalist world order. And so we wished to set an example of a kind of speech that deliberately negates the current mood of anxious compromise and passive acquiescence.


This manifesto nevertheless lacks the audacity of that of 1848, for ecosocialism is not yet a spectre, nor is it grounded in any concrete party or movement. It is only a line of reasoning, based on a reading of the present crisis and the necessary conditions for overcoming it. We make no claims of omniscience. Far from it, our goal is to invite dialogue, debate, emendation, above all, a sense of how this notion can be further realized. Innumerable points of resistance arise spontaneously across the chaotic ecumene of global capital. Many are immanently ecosocialist in content. How can these be gathered? Can we envision an "ecosocialist international?" Can the spectre be brought into being?


Manifesto


The twenty-first century opens on a catastrophic note, with an unprecedented degree of ecological breakdown and a chaotic world order beset with terror and clusters of low-grade, disintegrative warfare that spread like gangrene across great swathes of the planet--viz., central Africa, the Middle East, Northwestern South America--and reverberate throughout the nations.


In our view, the crises of ecology and those of societal breakdown are profoundly interrelated and should be seen as different manifestations of the same structural forces. The former broadly stems from rampant industrialization that overwhelms the earth's capacity to buffer and contain ecological destabilization. The latter stems from the form of imperialism known as globalization, with its disintegrative effects on societies that stand in its path. Moreover, these underlying forces are essentially different aspects of the same drive, which must be identified as the central dynamic that moves the whole: the expansion of the world capitalist system.


In our view, the crises of ecology and those of societal breakdown are profoundly interrelated and should be seen as different manifestations of the same structural forces. The former broadly stems from rampant industrialization that overwhelms the earth's capacity to buffer and contain ecological destabilization. The latter stems from the form of imperialism known as globalization, with its disintegrative effects on societies that stand in its path. Moreover, these underlying forces are essentially different aspects of the same drive, which must be identified as the central dynamic that moves the whole: the expansion of the world capitalist system.


We reject all euphemisms or propagandistic softening of the brutality of this regime: all greenwashing of its ecological costs, all mystification of the human costs under the names of democracy and human rights. We insist instead upon looking at capital from the standpoint of what it has really done.


Acting on nature and its ecological balance, the regime, with its imperative to constantly expand profitability, exposes ecosystems to destabilizing pollutants, fragments habitats that have evolved over aeons to allow the flourishing of organisms, squanders resources, and reduces the sensuous vitality of nature to the cold exchangeability required for the accumulation of capital.


From the side of humanity, with its requirements for self-determination, community, and a meaningful existence, capital reduces the majority of the world's people to a mere reservoir of labor power while discarding much of the remainder as useless nuisances. It has invaded and undermined the integrity of communities through its global mass culture of consumerism and depoliticization. It has expanded disparities in wealth and power to levels unprecedented in human history. It has worked hand in glove with a network of corrupt and subservient client states whose local elites carry out the work of repression while sparing the centre of its opprobrium. And it has set going a network of transtatal organizations under the overall supervision of the Western powers and the superpower United States, to undermine the autonomy of the periphery and bind it into indebtedness while maintaining a huge military apparatus to enforce compliance to the capitalist centre.


We believe that the present capitalist system cannot regulate, much less overcome, the crises it has set going. It cannot solve the ecological crisis because to do so requires setting limits upon accumulationóan unacceptable option for a system predicated upon the rule: Grow or Die! And it cannot solve the crisis posed by terror and other forms of violent rebellion because to do so would mean abandoning the logic of empire, which would impose unacceptable limits on growth and the whole "way of life" sustained by empire. Its only remaining option is to resort to brutal force, thereby increasing alienation and sowing the seed of further terrorism . . . and further counter-terrorism, evolving into a new and malignant variation of fascism.


In sum, the capitalist world system is historically bankrupt. It has become an empire unable to adapt, whose very gigantism exposes its underlying weakness. It is, in the language of ecology, profoundly unsustainable, and must be changed fundamentally, nay, replaced, if there is to be a future worth living.


Thus the stark choice once posed by Rosa Luxemburg returns: Socialism or Barbarism!, where the face of the latter now reflects the imprint of the intervening century and assumes the countenance of ecocatastrophe, terror counterterror, and their fascist degeneration.


But why socialism, why revive this word seemingly consigned to the rubbish-heap of history by the failings of its twentieth century interpretations? For this reason only: that however beaten down and unrealized, the notion of socialism still stands for the supersession of capital. If capital is to be overcome, a task now given the urgency of the survival of civilization itself, the outcome will perforce be ìsocialist, for that is the term which signifies the breakthrough into a post-capitalist society. If we say that capital is radically unsustainable and breaks down into the barbarism outlined above, then we are also saying that we need to build a "socialism" capable of overcoming the crises capital has set going. And if socialisms past have failed to do so, then it is our obligation, if we choose against submitting to a barbarous end, to struggle for one that succeeds. And just as barbarism has changed in a manner reflective of the century since Luxemburg enunciated her fateful alternative, so too, must the name, and the reality, of a socialism become adequate for this time.


It is for these reasons that we choose to name our interpretation of socialism as an ecosocialism, and dedicate ourselves to its realization.


Why Ecosocialism?


We see ecosocialism not as the denial but as the realization of the "first-epoch" socialisms of the twentieth century, in the context of the ecological crisis. Like them, it builds on the insight that capital is objectified past labor, and grounds itself in the free development of all producers, or to use another way of saying this, an undoing of the separation of the producers from the means of production. We understand that this goal was not able to be implemented by first-epoch socialism, for reasons too complex to take up here, except to summarize as various effects of underdevelopment in the context of hostility by existing capitalist powers. This conjuncture had numerous deleterious effects on existing socialisms, chiefly, the denial of internal democracy along with an emulation of capitalist productivism, and led eventually to the collapse of these societies and the ruin of their natural environments.


Ecosocialism retains the emancipatory goals of first-epoch socialism, and rejects both the attenuated, reformist aims of social democracy and the the productivist structures of the bureaucratic variations of socialism. It insists, rather, upon redefining both the path and the goal of socialist production in an ecological framework. It does so specifically in respect to the ìlimits on growthî essential for the sustainability of society. These are embraced, not however, in the sense of imposing scarcity, hardship and repression. The goal, rather, is a transformation of needs, and a profound shift toward the qualitative dimension and away from the quantitative. From the standpoint of commodity production, this translates into a valorization of use-values over exchange-valuesóa project of far-reaching significance grounded in immediate economic activity.


The generalization of ecological production under socialist conditions can provide the ground for the overcoming of the present crises. A society of freely associated producers does not stop at its own democratization. It must, rather, insist on the freeing of all beings as its ground and goal. It overcomes thereby the imperialist impulse both subjectively and objectively. In realizing such a goal, it struggles to overcome all forms of domination, including, especially, those of gender and race. And it surpasses the conditions leading to fundamentalist distortions and their terrorist manifestions. In sum, a world society is posited in a degree of ecological harmony with nature unthinkable under present conditions. A practical outcome of these tendencies would be expressed, for example, in a withering away of the dependency upon fossil fuels integral to industrial capitalism. And this in turn can provide the material point of release of the lands subjugated by oil imperialism, while enabling the containment of global warming, along with other afflictions of the ecological crisis.


No one can read these prescriptions without thinking, first, of how many practical and theoretical questions they raise, and second and more dishearteningly, of how remote they are from the present configuration of the world, both as this is anchored in institutions and as it is registered in consciousness. We need not elaborate these points, which should be instantly recognizable to all. But we would insist that they be taken in their proper perspective. Our project is neither to lay out every step of this way nor to yield to the adversary because of the preponderance of power he holds. It is, rather, to develop the logic of a sufficient and necessary transformation of the current order, and to begin developing the intermediate steps towards this goal. We do so in order to think more deeply into these possibilities, and at the same moment, begin the work of drawing together with all those of like mind. If there is any merit in these arguments, then it must be the case that similar thoughts, and practices to realize these thoughts, will be coordinatively germinating at innumerable points around the world. Ecosocialism will be international, and universal, or it will be nothing. The crises of our time can and must be seen as revolutionary opportunities, which it is our obligation to affirm and bring into existence.


Joel Kovel and Michael Lowy


Paris, Sept 2001


 


 


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
dale cooper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2946

posted 23 September 2002 02:09 AM      Profile for dale cooper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hey, great. Someone finally found a way to govern the billions of unsatisfied people out there and save the world at the same time. I have a feeling that everything is going to be okay after all.
From: Another place | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 23 September 2002 03:35 AM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, just try it out for 50 years, and if it doesn't work, try something else.
From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
BLAKE 3:16
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2978

posted 29 September 2002 08:57 PM      Profile for BLAKE 3:16     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I thint the ecosocialist manifestoe's great.

I agree with the authors that what they're proposing is on the one hand quite stark - socialism and ecology OR Barbarism, terror and environmental ruin. Their proposal for ecosocialist international is wonderful.

But what does it mean in practice? I think that ther is a coming together of ecological consciousness and working and oppressed people because they're the victims of pollution, of drought, of floods, of pesticides, of agribusiness.

Can people be brought together on a class wide and ecolgical basis?

What immediate forms would they take?


From: Babylon, Ontario | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Terry Johnson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1006

posted 29 September 2002 11:19 PM      Profile for Terry Johnson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It strikes me as profoundly sad that a movement dedicated to human liberation--socialism--could be so easily twinned to such a conservative slogan as "the limits of growth."

quote:
It insists, rather, upon redefining both the path and the goal of socialist production in an ecological framework. It does so specifically in respect to the limits on growth essential for the sustainability of society. These are embraced, not however, in the sense of imposing scarcity, hardship and repression. The goal, rather, is a transformation of needs, and a profound shift toward the qualitative dimension and away from the quantitative. From the standpoint of commodity production, this translates into a valorization of use-values over exchange-values: a project of far-reaching significance grounded in immediate economic activity

How the hell do you sell a program like this to the poor of the developing world or the working class of the developed world?

You don't need TV, household appliances, and all the other products of the industrial revolution. That would be unsustainable. In the manifesto's strange words, ecosocialists should strive for a "transformation of needs" and "a valorization of use-values over exchange-values."

That's what capitalists want us to accept: less.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 30 September 2002 12:14 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No, no, no.

See, they want LESS for us peons and MORE for themselves. And not voluntarily either. Instead it's through the grinding of real wages and the reliance on consumer debt.

On the other hand, the ecosocialists want EVERYBODY in the industrial nations to wake up to the fact that in order for *us* to have all the doodads and whatnots we DO buy at the prices they're at, a helluva lot of people need to live in conditions we can't even imagine.

Take a country like Botswana for example. The IMF nearly screwed these guys because they decided the government wasn't being responsible enough, even though it had contingency funds built up from royalties on agricultural and metal exports in order to guard against budget deficits.

If the government owned the mines instead of the big corporations that actually operate them, Botswanans would be better off because the bulk of the wealth would be recaptured instead of being dribbled down in the form of wages and royalties with the bulk of it being pulled overseas.

But if that happened, why, things might cost a buck or two more. Can't have that, by god, even if it meant Botswanans would buy more of OUR stuff. Like services. The USA, for example, has been pushing so hard for GATS because it is a net exporter of services and depends on this to keep its trade deficit down.

Our banks would love to expand into a country like that where the bulk of the workforce has a single employer and works in a sector with a ready demand for the product. They'd borrow money. Build houses. Pay the loans back. Borrow more. Buy cars, computers, washing machines, whatever.

This is not imaginary.

It is exactly the growth path of the modern US economy in the 1950s and 1960s.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca