Socialism for a sustainable world

M. Vijaya Kumar

It is an undisputed fact that human economic activity has brought about irreversible changes in our eco-system. It is predicted that we are on the verge of an environmental catastrophe, that could spell doom for the entire biosphere. Popular writings by bourgeoisie environmentalists blame the poor for the environmental degradation: they blame the burgeoning population, increased consumption, use of wood for cooking etc. By projecting the capitalist activity as the inevitable effort of the capitalist class to satisfy the needs of the population, the blame is again thrown on the world's poor. The solutions offered by them, such as reducing energy usage, using cooking gas instead of wood and minimising use of plastic, are woefully short of staving off the impending catastrophe.

This planetary environmental emergency has its roots in the capitalist economic system itself. Capitalism is an economic system that is based on the pursuit of profit and capital accumulation. The main cause of the looming environmental disaster is the driving logic of the system itself.

The ruling capitalist class, notwithstanding their purported concern for the environment, are incapable of making the changes that are necessary. It is without doubt that the objective of climate stabilization cannot be compatible with the endless expansion of the global capitalist economy.

Hugo Chavez argues that Capitalism is a destructive development model that is putting an end to life; it threatens to put a definitive end to the human species. The thesis of capitalism, infinite development, is a destructive pattern. Capitalism is the road to hell, to the destruction of the world. Socialism, is the direction, the path to save the planet....?

Marx and the Capitalist Rift

It was the separation of workers from the earth as means of production that Marx refer to in Capital as the “historical precondition of the capitalist mode of production” and its “permanent foundation,” the basis for the emergence of the modern proletariat.’ Capitalism began as a system of encroachment on nature and public wealth.

The domination of exchange value over use value in capitalist development and the ecological impact of this can also be seen in Marx’s general formula of capital, M-C-M". In order to maintain a given share of wealth under this system, the capitalist must continually seek to expand it. Intrinsic to the capital relation, Marx insisted, was the refusal to accept any absolute boundaries to its advance, which were treated as mere barriers to be surmounted. This endless treadmill of production and consumption is the basic problem underlying the environmental crisis.

For Marx this capitalist Rawbbau (over-exploitation) took the form of “an irreparable rift” within capitalist society in the metabolism between humanity and the earth. In the industrialization of agriculture, he suggested, the true nature of “capitalist production” was revealed, which “only develops...by simultaneously undermining the original sources of all wealth - the soil and the worker.”

Sustainable development

“Sustainable development” is defined by the United Nations (1987) as socio-economic development that meets “the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

It is an undeniable fact that that Marx is the first great thinker to suggest a solution to the problem of sustainable development. Capital, Vol-I mentions about the root causes of unsustainable development, about the political, economic, and ecological aspects of sustainable development, and about the kind of social system we need to achieve sustainability.

Capitalist society today is dominated by commodity production and exchange to a degree never before reached in human history. The entire wealth of the society is reduced to a vast conglomeration of commodities produced for sale on the market. Humanity’s domination by commodities and the demands of commodity production illustrate what Marx called "the fetishism of the commodity," in which commodities, and the requirements of their production and exchange capture and enthral human communities, controlling individual and social life like the fetishes and totems of primitive religions. In Capital, Vol- I, Marx said that the source of commodity fetishism is the commodity form itself.

Thus commodity fetishism is the domination of humankind by fetishized market-values. This causes use-value, as a criterion of social utility and desirability, to be lost sight of and eclipsed by the fetish of market-value, and market-value to be falsely equated with social usefulness and desirability. The fetishization of market-value over use-value guarantees that under capitalist production, profitable goods and services will be produced in abundance and unprofitable ones will not be produced. From the fetishization of market value follows fetishization of the market itself and appears as the all-powerful, ultimate regulator of social life. Commodity fetishism mystifies not only man’s relations to commodities and other men, but to nature as well. If capitalism commodifies nature and man's real relationship of dependence upon nature is ignored due to commodity fetishism, then human beings will not perceive the need for sustainable development.

Marx’s analysis of commodity fetishism suggests an important conclusion regarding the characteristics of sustainable societies. Sustainability requires society to acknowledge humanity's dependence on nature and to conduct rational management of resources with the emphasis on conservation and maintenance of environmental quality, while at the same time meeting fundamental human needs. For this to be achieved, resource management and production decisions must be guided by the findings of ecological and other environmental sciences regarding the best sustainable development strategies. Construction of a sustainable society requires ending commodity fetishism and the commodification of nature, in short, it requires the abolition of capitalism.

Istvan Mészaros writes in his book, "The Structural Crisis of Capital", that "capitalism has reached a point where only a radical transformation of our societies can save us from eventual social collapse and environmental disaster." Mészéros writes of nothing less than the possibility of the annihilation of humankind if in the next few decades we do not succeed in eradicating capital from our economic system. The economic decision-making has to be transferred to the associated producers. People have to take over the decision-making that will enable them to control their conditions of existence.

Mészaros emphasises the difficulty of the task of going beyond capital: "Capital is not simply a set of economic mechanisms, as its nature is often conceptualized, but a multi-faceted and all- embracing mode of social metabolic reproduction, deeply affecting every single aspect of life, from the directly material and economic to the most mediated cultural relations. Consequently, structural change is feasible only by challenging the capital system in its entirety as a mode of social metabolic control, instead of introducing partial adjustments into its framework."

And if we achieve a socialist society, what might it look like? Here is Mészaros's answer: "... we can only speak about socialism when the people are in control of their own activity and of the allocation of its fruits to their own ends. This means the self-activity and self-control of society by the ‘associated producers,’ as Marx had put it. Naturally, the ‘associated producers cannot control their activity and its objectives unless they also control the allocation of the socially produced surplus." But Mészaros warns that without a clear compass showing the way, things could go astray and old hierarchies would emerge in new forms.

Breaking the "'Logic of Capital" primarily requires that we put an end to this mindless and ever expanding cycle of commodity production and consumption, which fails to meet real human needs. This is the only way to save the ecosystem. At the same time, we Marxists cannot advocate that we stop all human economic activity and go back to primitive days. We have to recognise the fact it is possible to meet the entire needs of humanity using environmentally sustainable economic measures, without resorting to the destructive methods employed by capitalism.

Permit me to quote extensively from a wonderful booklet, 'The Path to Human Development: Capitalism or Socialism?' - by Michael A. Lebowitz, published by Monthly Review Press (2009)?

Creating rich human beings

The logic of human development points to our need to be able to develop through our democratic, participatory, and protagonistic activity in every aspect of our lives. Through revolutionary practice in our communities, our workplaces, and in all our social institutions we can produce ourselves as what Marx called “rich human beings” - rich in capacities and needs - in contrast to the impoverished and crippled human beings that capitalism produces. Understanding the logic of human development demonstrates the perverse, anti-human logic of capital and points to the alternative we need to build. Only a revolutionary democracy can create the conditions in which we can invent ourselves daily as rich human beings.

The elementary triangle of socialism

If there is to be democratic production for the needs of society, however, there is an essential precondition. In other words, the precondition is social ownership of the means of production, the first side of what President Hugo Chavez has called the “elementary triangle” of socialism: (a) social ownership of the means of production, which is a basis for (b) social production organized by workers in order to (c) satisfy communal needs and communal purposes. Let us consider each element in this particular combination of distribution-production-consumption.

A. Social ownership of the means of production

Social ownership of the means of production is critical because it is the only way to ensure that our communal, social productivity is directed to the free development of all. Social ownership is not, however, the same as state ownership. Social ownership, however, implies a profound democracy - one in which people function as subjects, both as producers and as members of society, in determining the use of the results of our social labour.

B. Social production organised by workers

Social production organized by workers builds new relations among producers - relations of cooperation and solidarity. Protagonistic democracy in the workplace is an essential condition for the full development of the producers.

C. Satisfaction of communal needs and purposes

Satisfaction of communal needs and purposes focuses upon the importance of basing our productive activity upon the recognition of our common humanity and our needs as members of the human family. Rather than relating to others through an exchange relation, this third element of the elementary triangle of socialism has as its goal the building of a relation to others characterized by our unity based upon recognition of difference.

Revolutionary practice

Democratic decision-making within the workplace (instead of capitalist direction and supervision), democratic direction by the community of the goals of activity (in place of direction by capitalists), production for the purpose of satisfying needs (rather than for the purpose of exchange), common ownership of the means of production (rather than private or group ownership), a democratic, participatory, and protagonistic form of governance (rather than a state over and above society), solidarity based upon recognition of our common humanity (rather than   self-orientation), the focus upon development of human potential (rather than upon the production of things) - all these are means of producing new human beings, the limbs of a new organic system, socialism for the twenty-first century.

The virtuous circle of socialism

We begin with (a) producers who live within a society characterized by solidarity - people who recognize their unity based upon differences. These producers (b) enter into an association in order to produce for the needs of society and (c) in this process develop and expand their capacities as rich human beings. Thus the product of their activity is (d) producers who recognize their unity and their need for each other. They, accordingly, re-enter into this process of the virtuous circle of socialism.

However, its growth is not driven by the logic of capital - a logic which demands greater production, greater consumption of the earth’s resources, and greater consumption. On the contrary, the growth driven by the logic of human development is not a quantitative growth but rather a qualitative growth - the development of all-sided, rich social individuals. There are no inherent limits here - except the full development of all human potential.

Socialism is a precondition for a sustainable world

Marx’s primary definition of socialism/communism was therefore that of a society in which “the associated producers govern the human metabolism with nature in a rational way... accomplishing it with the least expenditure of energy.” Along with this, he developed the most radical conception of sustainability possible, insisting that no one, not even all the countries and peoples of the world taken together, owned the earth; that it was simply held in trust and needed to be maintained in perpetuity in line with the principle of boni patres familias (good heads of the household). His overall ecological critique thus required that instead of the open rifts developed under capitalism, there needed to be closed metabolic cycles between humanity and nature. This allowed him to incorporate thermodynamic conceptions into his understanding of economy and society.’

It is the historic need to combat the absolute destructiveness of the system of capital at this stage - replacing it, as Marx envisioned, with a society of substantive equality and ecological sustainability - which constitutes the essential meaning of revolution in our time.  John Bellamy Foster says: "The transition from capitalism to socialism is the most difficult problem of socialist theory and practice. The human relation to nature lies at the heart of the transition to socialism. An ecological perspective is pivotal to our understanding of capitalism’s limits, the failures of the early socialist experiments, and the overall struggle for egalitarian and sustainable human development."®

Che Guevara argued in his “Man and Socialism in Cuba” that the crucial issue in the building of socialism was not economic development but human development. This needs to be extended by recognizing, in line with Marx, that the real question is one of sustainable human development, explicitly addressing the human metabolism with nature through human labour.

In the 20th Century, in the efforts at building socialism, the approach has been mechanistic as the mere expansion of the means of production, rather than the development of human social relations and needs. Latin American experiments in building socialism today lies in understanding the problem raised by Che: the need to develop socialist humanity. The transition to socialism is possible only through a revolutionizing practice that revolutionizes human beings themselves. The only way to accomplish this is by altering our human metabolism with nature, along with our human-social relations, transcending both the alienation of nature and of humanity.

The same commitment to the egalitarian, universal development of humanity was fundamental to Marx. The evolution of the society of associated producers was to be synonymous with the positive transcendence of human alienation. The goal was a many-sided human development.

“Communism, as fully developed naturalism,” Marx wrote, “equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism.””

This ecological transformation is deeply rooted in the Cuban revolution as harmonious development of the economy and social relations with nature. In Cuba the goal of human development that Che advanced is taking on a new form through what is widely regarded as “the greening of Cuba.” Cubans have created what may be the world’s largest working model of a semi-sustainable agriculture. Indeed, according to the World Wildlife Fund’s Living Planet Report, “Cuba alone” in the entire world has achieved a high level of human development, with a human development index greater than 0.8, while also having a per capita ecological footprint below the world’s average.

Venezuela under Chavez has not only advanced revolutionary new social relations with the growth of Bolivarian circles, community councils, and increased worker control of factories, but has introduced some crucial initiatives with regard to what Istvan Mészéros has called a new “socialist time accountancy” in the production and exchange of goods. In the new Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA), the emphasis is on communal exchange, the exchange of activities rather than exchange values. Instead of allowing the market to establish the priorities of the entire economy, planning is being introduced to redistribute resources and capacities to those most in need and to the majority of the populace. The goal here is to address the most pressing individual and collective requirements of the society related in particular to physiological needs and hence raising directly the question of the human relation to nature. This is the absolute precondition of the creation of a sustainable society. In the countryside preliminary attempts have also been made to green Venezuelan agriculture.7

As John Bellamy Foster stresses, "today the transition to socialism and the transition to an ecological society are one." Hence, nothing is fairer - more just, more beautiful, and more necessary - today than the struggle to overthrow the regime of capital and to create a system of substantive equality and sustainable human development; a socialism for the twenty-first century.

Notes

1, What Every Environmentalist Needs To Know about Capitalism: A Citizen's Guide to Capitalism and the Environment by By Fred Magdoff and John Bellamy Foster, Monthly Review, August 2011.

2. The Ecology of Marxian Political Economy by John Bellamy Foster, Monthly Review, September 2011.

3. Socialism is the path to save the planet - speech by Hugo Chavez at the 15th International Conference of the United Nations on Climate Change, Kingdom of Denmark, Wednesday, 16 December 2009

4. Karl Marx, Capital, vol. 1

5. On Marx's specific ecological insights in these areas see John Bellamy Foster, Marx’s Ecology (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2000)

6. Ecology and the Transition from Capitalism to Socialism by John Bellamy Foster, Monthly Review, November 2008

7. Karl Marx, The Poverty of Philosophy (New York: International Publishers, 1963), 146, and Early Writings (New York: Vintage, 1974), 348, 353.

8. Capitalism and the Accumulation of Catastrophe by John Bellamy Foster, Monthly Review, December 2011

9. The Path to Human Development: Capitalism or Socialism?- by Michael A. Lebowitz, Monthly Review, Feb 2009