Introduction
This essay is written as a critical yet comradely reply to Steve Welzer’s post in New Green Horizons, “Notice how different this paradigm is.” [1]
Grounded in a Marxian, ecosocialist perspective, I consider some cornerstones of Steve’s positions, including the Great Turning, bioregionalism, and the rejection of Marxian theory (historical materialism). I believe that Steve’s positions have their ideological origins in the counterculture movement of the 1960s. [2]
I then identify what I believe to be substantive agreements and disagreements with Steve’s approach. I consider the path towards a post-capitalist social system that may overcome the suicidal growth imperative. One that looks forward to a liberated and sustainable ecosocialist future, not backward to restoration of the material economies of the paleolithic.
Where we agree and where we disagree
The central point of agreement, I believe, between Steve and me is the necessity of a socioeconomic and political transition from our current capitalist regime to an ecosocialist society. Without this convergence of views, it would be more difficult to find a basis for common work.
At the same time, there are significant differences in our understanding of the current conjuncture. First, there is a divergence on the central role of bioregionalism as foundational for the historical transformation on which we agree. Second is the role of Marxian theory (historical materialism) in informing our understanding and political practice.
The Great Turning and bioregionalism.
As I read Steve’s essay, it is premised on the concepts of the Great Turning as implemented through the centrality of bioregionalism.
Since the article implicitly assumes some previous exposure to these ideas, it may be useful to first define the generally accepted meaning of these terms.
The Great Turning
A foundational document for understanding the Great Turning may be found in the writings of Joanna Macy, an early proponent of this perspective. Macy wrote in 2009 that “The Great Turning is a name for the […]: shift from the Industrial Growth Society to a life-sustaining civilization.” [3] She goes on to write that the “ecological and social crises we face are caused by an economic system dependent on accelerating growth. This self-destructing political economy sets its goals and measures its performance in terms of ever-increasing corporate profits—in other words by how fast materials can be extracted from Earth and turned into consumer products, weapons, and waste.”
In what follows, I will have more to say on the relation between the Great Turning and ecosocialism.
Bioregionalism
Bioregionalism, Wikipedia tells us [4], is an ideology based on the belief that political, cultural, and economic systems are more sustainable and just when geographically organized along naturally defined areas, or bioregions.
On the limits of bioregionalism
While bioregionalism may be a useful framework for thinking about the geography of governmental units, it leaves open the question as to the social and political structures that interact to govern these units. Put another way, bioregionalism stands aside on questions like the democratic organization of the economy and the allocation of material and labor resources of the bioregions.
Bioregionalism may be equally applicable to either socialist or capitalist instantiation.
Steve proposes that the upper population limit for a functional bioregion is about 1 million inhabitants. This creates an obvious problem for existing urbanizations like the New York city region and the Mexico city region, both of which have populations in excess of 20 million.
Or consider Los Angeles with a population approaching 10 million. Should we advocate dividing Los Angeles into 10 regions? If so, what bioregional basis would govern the division?
To complicate matters, the Los Angeles urbanization is largely dependent on freshwater from elsewhere, including northern California, the Owens Valley, and the Colorado River, each hundreds of miles away. How then do we define the Los Angeles bioregion?
Perhaps more importantly, how will decisions be made to define their boundaries? Whatever the decision, it will have to involve the active participation of governing institutions at a higher level than the bioregions themselves.
At its best, bioregionalism is a potential building block, one piece of the puzzle. But it is hardly a solution by itself to capitalist social, political, imperial, and economic degradation of society and human culture more broadly.
Towards an ecosocialist future
The Great Turning describes the transition from the socially and ecologically destructive, capitalist-based industrial growth to a life-sustaining civilization. Eco-socialism offers a path to the realization of the Great Turning through the creation of a post-capitalist, democratic, and sustainable future.
To escape the current environmental crisis, we need to continue to develop and implement a transitional ecosocialist program, a program of both reform and revolution, a program that leads from the current industrial growth society to a life-sustaining civilization, a society that combines environmental sustainability with the social and material benefits of contemporary and future technology, a society based on global equality and equity, and a society that transcends the social alienation of capitalism..
On Marxism and ecosocialism
Marxism (or, as I prefer, historical materialism) provides us with the best available theoretical tools to plot a course towards the realization of these goals. The current capitalist system is based on the exploitation of nature and labor to produce ever greater profits for the owning (capitalist) class. Environmental destruction finds no place in the capitalist calculation of profit and loss, unless compelled by the state. A democratic socialist economy, on the other hand, can take not only the environment, but also the interests of the lives of ordinary working people into account when allocating material and human resources. It is the international working classes themselves that have both the material interest and the social power to replace the failing capitalist system with a new social system, one in which we can live in harmony with one another, and in harmony with the natural world as well.
Social ownership of the key components of the economy is central both to the protection of the global environment and also to the well-being of the working classes internationally. This is the essence of contemporary historical materialism.
Note that contemporary Marxism is not confined to the writings of Marx, central though these may be. Marx died in 1883, but the development of Marxian thought has continued to the present.
Here are three examples. The nature of contemporary imperialism was illuminated by the theoretical work of Bukharin [5], Luxemburg [6], and Lenin [7]. More recently, the essential understanding of intersectionality was framed by the work of the Black, lesbian, feminist, and Marxian socialist Combahee River Collective in the 1970’s [8], although the term itself was coined somewhat later [9]. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly from our current perspective, is the concept of ecosocialism itself.
The 2008 Belem Ecosocialist Declaration [10], was and is foundational for the world ecosocialist movement. Its attainment depends on the self-organization of the working classes. The declaration notes that:
“a process [for social justice and environmental sustainability] cannot begin without a revolutionary transformation of social and political structures based on the active support, by the majority of the population, of an ecosocialist program. The struggle of labour – workers, farmers, the landless and the unemployed – for social justice is inseparable from the struggle for environmental justice. Capitalism, socially and ecologically exploitative and polluting, is the enemy of nature and of labour alike.”
Conclusion
Continued exponential economic growth under capitalism is unsustainable, especially in the advanced industrial economies. We must find ways to move towards a sustainable, global, ecosocialist economy that provides for material abundance consistent with natural limits.
We are living through a time of planetary social and environmental crises. These intricated crises flow from capitalist exploitation of nature and of labor. They will only be solved with the transcendence of capitalism.
This does not mean that we are obliged to return to the paleolithic. Especially for those of us in the imperial heartlands, it would be naive, short-sighted, and presumptuous of us to believe this assertion. What we need is a society that can make informed and democratic decisions on how best to live together with humanity as a whole as part of a system which sees us as integral to the natural and the social worlds, a part that has the collective ability to reshape our relation to both the natural and the social worlds in a way that only humans have the capacity to imagine and implement.
In a quote often attributed to Italian revolutionary Antonio Gramsci, we should approach our current historical conjuncture with pessimism of the intellect and optimism of the will.
- https://newgreenhorizons.us/notice-how-different-this-paradigm-is/
- Along with many other self-identifed Marxists, I prefer the term “historical materialism” to “Marxism”. It depersonalizes a social science viewpoint and in so doing, allows for continued development.
- https://www.ecoliteracy.org/article/great-turning#:~:text=1.,Great%20Turning%20is%20equally%20crucial
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioregionalism
- https://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1917/imperial/
- https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1915/anti-critique/index.htm
- https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/
- https://isreview.org/issue/91/black-feminism-and-intersectionality/index.html
- https://www.law.columbia.edu/news/archive/kimberle-crenshaw-intersectionality-more-two-decades-later
- https://climateandcapitalism.com/2018/07/22/the-belem-ecosocialist-declaration-an-historic-document
“While bioregionalism may be a useful framework for thinking about the geography of governmental units, it leaves open the question as to the social and political structures that interact to govern these units.”
Right. The natural (and healthy) condition is cultural diversity. The misguided civilizational trajectories of the recent millennia have led increasingly to an aberrant and pathological globalized monoculture.
So: We shouldn’t conjecture that some globalized-universal new system will replace the current one. That’s where the notion of “chimerical” comes in. Rather, we should welcome the idea of a world of decentralized polities exhibiting diversity in respect to just about all aspects of human lifeways — including economic relations.
A universalistic-utopian social engineering mentality has tended to be a flaw of leftist thinking — for 200 years! It’s understandably ridiculed by many. A bioregionalist conception of a better world is very different and actually realistic. Either we think of it as post-leftist or we hope that the left comes to its senses and recognizes the extent to which it needs to alter its worldview.
“Consider Los Angeles with a population approaching 10 million. Should we advocate dividing Los Angeles into 10 regions?”
The hypermodern megalopolis phenomenon is one horrible aspect among so many horrible aspects. When anti-modernist leftists take off the rose-colored glasses they can finally see how egregiously ugly, enervating, and ecologically immoral is the congestion, over-development, and overshoot. Look out your window! Of course depopulation is a necessary part of the devolutionary perspective. It would be great if it could be achieved in a sensitive and gradualistic way — not via governmental decree, but as countercultural ethos. How? As we get back to living in real communities, village-like neighborhoods and communities (yes, “it takes a village” to properly raise children) the obligations and satisfactions of child-rearing could be shared. Couples and individuals could be satisfied having fewer children. Ideally it would be a conscious social-change part of the “greening of society” cultural shift. (By the way, from the current state of hypertrophy, I do assert that smaller and simpler would be better, but I never did, and never would, say “return to the paleolithic.”) Unfortunately and unavoidably, the coming crucible of crisis will be causing depopulation in a less-than-desirable way. It’s started already in some countries; malaise is making people averse to bringing children into this stressful and despairing-of-the-future world.
In regard to: “Capitalism, socially and ecologically exploitative and polluting, is the enemy of nature and of labour alike … We are living through a time of planetary social and environmental crises. These intricated crises flow from capitalist exploitation of nature and of labor. They will only be solved with the transcendence of capitalism.”
Capitalism is the enemy of all people other than the wealth-power elites. But it’s just the current manifestation of a longstanding aberrant social reality characterized by expansionism, growth, developmentalism, urbanism, statism, wealth accumulation, empire building, patriarchy, alienated labor, and an anti-ecological totalitarian form of agriculture. So our salvation must involve a deeper critique and a different praxis than is conveyed by the notion of “moving forward” to a new system and a “global, ecosocialist economy.”
See my attempt at summarizing the “Red to Green” proposition: https://stevenwelzer.medium.com/an-attempt-to-summarize-from-red-to-green-130514a5c576