Ecosocialist Manifesto

[sunfarstar]

生态社会主义宣言


乔尔·柯维尔 迈克尔·洛威[1]


Ecosocialist Manifesto


by Joel Kovel and Michael Lowy


译者：李楠





导 言

生态社会主义宣言的理念是由若埃·柯维和迈克尔·洛威在一个关于生态学和社会主义的讨论会上联合提出的，该 讨论会于2001年9月 在巴黎举办。我们现在都面临着葛兰西的悖论，即我们生活在这样一个时代，它的旧秩序正在死去（连同人类文明 一起），但是新的秩序却似乎还没有任何建立起来 的迹象。不过我们至少可以宣告新的秩序就要来临了。笼罩在我们头上的阴影既不是环境破坏，也不是全球经济衰 退，而是一种令人深信不疑的宿命式的论断，即资 本主义的世界秩序是不可替代的。正是因为如此，我们想以此宣言作为一个榜样，来提振当前这种被急于妥协和无 奈接受的心态所笼罩的气氛。不过，这份宣言可不 像1848的宣言（《共产党宣言》）那样前卫，因为生态社会主义还不是一个幽灵，并且不是任何 具体 的党派或者运动的纲领。在了解到当前的危机及其解决之道后，这份宣言只是我们对这个过程的一种推理。我们当 然不知道全部的答案，我们的目的只是希望它能够 带来对话、辩论、建议，同时最重要的是想知道如何才能够使这种理念被更好地付诸实践。全球资本主义所带来的 混乱已经引起了无数的抵制，而其中许多观点与生 态社会主义的理念是一致的。我们如何集中这些观点？我们能够预期一个“生态社会主义国际”（ecosoci alist international）吗？这个幽灵能够成为实际的存在吗？



生态社会主义宣言

21世 纪在一种灾难性氛围中开场。前所未有的生态环境的破坏，世界秩序的混乱，恐怖和分裂的战争，在一条带状大陆 上分布开来，沿着中非、中东直到南美洲西北部等 地区的国家在战争中震荡不安。在我们看来，生态危机与社会崩溃是紧密联系在一起的，并且应当被视为同样的结 构力量的表现。
生态危机主要是因为疯狂的工业化进程超过了地球所能承受的限度而引起的。社会的崩溃则根源于帝国主义，即全 球化所带来的影响——它会碾碎所有在它前进道路 上的人类社会。这些力量实际上是同一推动力的不同方面。这个推动力就是世界资本主义系统的扩张，我们必须将 它视为工业化和全球化进程的根本动力。
我们反对对这种体制的凶残性的轻描淡写：粉饰其所带来的生态代价，借用民主及人权的名义使其所带来的生命代 价模糊化。
我们坚持只能根据资本主义的实际表现来看待它。
这个体制，由于对利润的持续增长的迫切追求，不断影响着大自然和生态平衡，使生态系统遭到严重破坏，使从远 古演变至今才适宜各种生物蓬勃生长的地域支离破碎，挥霍资源，并且为了积累资本的需要而把自然生命力变成冷 冰冰的交换价值。
人类是需要有自决权、群体情感以及生活意义的，资本却把世界上大多数人仅仅当作是劳动力的储备，剩余者则被 弃之若草芥。
资本已经通过消费主义和非政治化的大众文化侵入并且破坏了社区的整体性。
它已经使财富和权力上的不平等扩至人类历史上前所未有的水平。
它已经同腐败的依附国家勾结起来，构成了一张网络，让依附国家本地的精英集团来干镇压国内人民的勾当，而中 心国家免受声誉上的伤害。
资本还撒开了一张完全在西方列强尤其是美国这个超级大国监视之下的跨国网络，破坏周边国家的自主性，用债务 束缚他们，并且维持一个强大的军事力量以迫使他们顺从于资本主义中心。
我们坚信：现存的资本主义体系无法调节它所带来的危机，更别提战胜它们了。它无力解决生态危机，因为这样做 需要限制资本的积累，而这正是这个系统所无法接受的。因为它的信条就是：“增长！否则就灭亡！ ”
它也不能解决恐怖以及其他形式的暴力反抗行为所带来的危机，因为这样做就意味着放弃这个帝国的逻辑基础，就 要对资本增长以及帝国的整个生存方式加以无法接 受的限制。它仅有的选择就是诉诸暴力，这样就更加使人心疏离，埋下恐怖主义未来的种子。然后再反恐，由此演 变出一个新的危险的法西斯政权的变种。
总之，资本主义世界体系已经在历史上破产了，它变成了一个无法适应世界现状的帝国，其空前庞大恰恰暴露其根 本虚弱。以生态学的观点来看的话，它是不可持续发展的，所以如果我们还想要一个可供我们生存的未来的话，我 们必须改变它，要从根本上替换掉它。
于是，又回到了罗莎·卢森堡那句直截了当的名言：“要么社会主义，要么野蛮主义！”而野蛮主义的面貌现在反 映出最近一个世纪的印记，表现为巨大的生态灾难，恐怖对恐怖，以及它们向法西斯主义的堕落。
但是为什么要选择社会主义呢？为什么要重新拾起这个字眼呢？它不是似乎由于20世纪中它的各流派都失败了而 已经被抛到历史垃圾堆去了吗?
其实原因只有一个，那就是：尽管社会主义没有实现，它的实质却依然代表着对资本统治的取代。如果要战胜资本 ，使文明能够延续，一个必然的结果就是社会主 义，因为只有它代表着向后资本主义社会的突破。如果我们说资本主义根本上是不可持续发展的，并且会崩溃成为 如上文所说的“野蛮主义”，那么就意味着我们需 要建立一个“社会主义”，它能够战胜资本主义目前的危机。并且，如果社会主义在过去没能完成这项任务的话， 那么这就将成为我们的义务，因为如果我们不愿走 向一个野蛮的终点的话，我们就必须向一个能够可持续发展下去的世界奋斗。正如卢森堡所指出的野蛮主义的变化 所反映出的世界现实，社会主义，不仅是在名义 上，并且在实际上将成为这次的选择。
正是基于上述理由，我们决定将我们对于社会主义的阐释命名为生态社会主义，并且我们将尽我们所 能来实现它。



为什么是生态社会主义？

我们并不将生态社会主义视为对社会主义的否定，相反，我们认为它是在生态危机情况下对20世 纪“第一阶段”社会主义的实现。如社会主义一样，生态社会主义是建立在这样一种理解上的，即资本不过是物化 的死劳动，而生态社会主义则是建立在所有的生产 者自由发展的基础上，换句话说，它要中止生产者和生产资料之间的分离。我们也清楚这个目标在过去直到现在一 直未能实现，原因太过复杂，很难一一列举。但我 们可以大致上将这些原因总结为，在遭到现存的资本主义国家敌视包围压迫的情况下，一些国家由于经济欠发达， 使得生产者和生产资料之间重新结合的社会主义初 衷未能实现。这种困境对现实的社会主义有着很大的负面影响，简单来说就是这些国家拒绝内部的民主化，并且模 仿资本主义的经济增长主义，最终导致这些社会的 崩溃以及自然环境的破坏。生态社会主义具有和第一阶段社会主义相同的解放目标，并且反对社会民主主义卑贱的 改良主义目标和官僚社会主义的增长主义取向。生 态社会主义坚持在一个生态学的框架内重新定义社会主义生产的途径和目标。它是通过“限制增长”这样一个维持 社会可持续发展的前提来达到目的的，但是这并不 意味着匮乏、艰苦或压迫。
我们的目标实际上是对人类需求的一种转化，是将其导向重质量的方向，而非重数量的方向。从商品生产的角度来 说，这意味着重视使用价值高于重视交换价值。这是一个立足于当前经济活动之上的计划，意义深远 。
在社会主义的条件下，生态主义的生产方式是解决当前日益严重的危机的基础。一个由生产者自由组织而成的社会 ，并不会止步于它自身的民主化，它要进一步坚持 以全人类的自由为自己的立足点和目标。这就要求它要克服主观上的和客观上的帝国主义冲动。在实现这个目标的 道路上，它要努力克服一切形式的压迫，特别包括 性别的和种族的压迫，并且，它消除了导向原教旨主义混乱和恐怖主义的条件。总之，这个世界性的社会与自然界 能够保持生态上的和谐。这样一种社会在当前是无 法想象的。这种趋势的一个实际结果将会是，比如，渐渐减少对化石燃料的依赖——它一直同工业资本主义相始终 。而这反过来会使被石油帝国主义所占据的土地解 放出来，同时使全球变暖以及其他一些生态危机带来的影响得到控制。
任何人在读到上述倡议的时候，无法不为其隐含着多少实际及理论上的困难而苦恼，也无法不为其距离当前世界的 实际情况太远而沮丧。要知道，现状本身是得到现 实的制度和现有主流意识的维护的。我们并不需要详细地说明这点，因为这显而易见。我们坚持的只是要正确地衡 量这些问题。我们的计划不需要列出方案中的每一 步，更不是向占据优势的敌人妥协，相反，我们只想促进一种有别于现状的发展逻辑，一种能够对现状带来足够和 必要的改变的发展逻辑。此外，就是开始促成能够 导向最终目标过渡的中间步骤。我们开展这个工作，是为了更深入地思考改变的种种可能性，同时还想吸引志同道 合者。如果这些主张有任何可取之处，那么类似的 想法以及实现这些想法的实践，将会在全世界无数个角落一起萌芽。生态社会主义将是国际化的，放之四海而皆准 的，否则它将什么都不是。我们视我们时代的危机 为一个革命机会。我们的义务就是证实它，并且实现它。
[1]乔尔·柯维尔，美国纽约伯德大学教授。迈克尔·洛威，巴黎科学研究国家中心社会学研究主任。

[Killfacer]

I particuarly agree with this bit:



生态社会主义宣言


21世 纪在一种灾难性氛围中开场。前所未有的生态环境的破坏，世界秩序的混乱，恐怖和分裂的战争，在 一条带状大陆 上分布开来，沿着中非、中东直到南美洲西北部等 地区的国家在战争中震荡不安。在我们看来，生态危机与社会崩溃是紧密联系在一起的，并且应当被 视为同样的结 构力量的表现。
生态危机主要是因为疯狂的工业化进程超过了地球所能承受的限度而引起的。社会的崩溃则根源于帝 国主义，即全 球化所带来的影响——它会碾碎所有在它前进道路 上的人类社会。这些力量实际上是同一推动力的不同方面。这个推动力就是世界资本主义系统的扩张 ，我们必须将 它视为工业化和全球化进程的根本动力。
我们反对对这种体制的凶残性的轻描淡写：粉饰其所带来的生态代价，借用民主及人权的名义使其所 带来的生命代 价模糊化。
我们坚持只能根据资本主义的实际表现来看待它。
这个体制，由于对利润的持续增长的迫切追求，不断影响着大自然和生态平衡，使生态系统遭到严重 破坏，使从远 古演变至今才适宜各种生物蓬勃生长的地域支离破碎，挥霍资源，并且为了积累资本的需要而把自然 生命力变成冷 冰冰的交换价值。
人类是需要有自决权、群体情感以及生活意义的，资本却把世界上大多数人仅仅当作

[teenagebricks]

For anyone interested, a vague translation can be found here (http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http://www.revleft.com/vb/ecosocialist-manifesto-t106175/index.html&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&history_state0=).

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

For anyone interested, a vague translation can be found here (http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http://www.revleft.com/vb/ecosocialist-manifesto-t106175/index.html&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&history_state0=).

And an english translation here: http://members.optushome.com.au/spainter/Ecosocialist.html


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 capital’s 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.
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 center 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 center 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 accumulation—an 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 “socialist, 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 “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.
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.

[Dimentio]

Is'nt that the original?

I think I've already read it...

[robbo203]

The problem with this manifesto , great though it is many respects, is its basic ambiguity about what is meant by "ecosocialism". It talks of the valorisation of use value over exchange value. Does this mean there is still exchange value - commodity production. If so , this is not socialism but a kind of humanised capitalism - Ecocapitalism - and as such is an unrealistic aim

[chebol]

For the proper version, the second version (the Belem Declaration), versions in greek, portuguese, italian and turkish, and background to the formation of the Ecosocialist International Network, go here: http://www.ecosocialistnetwork.org/

Also, Ian Angus, one of the founders of the EIN and editor of climateandcapitalism (http://climateandcapitalism.com/), is touring Australia at the moment. You can listen to a talk he gave on capitalism and the environment here (http://leftclickblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/audio-capilitalism-and-climate-change.html).