Ecosocialism

[Left Turn]

I preface this by declaring that I am an ecosocialist.

I'm interested in what members conception and opinion is of ecosocialism.

Here's my conception of ecosocialism:

Ecosocialism is the marriage of red and green politics. One part of ecosocialism is the traditional socialist/marxist demand for an end to private property, and an end to private, for profit ventures of any kind, in order to achieve a classless society. The other part of ecosocialism is that humanity must drastically reduce our collective carbon/ecological footprint in order to prevent a mass ecological crisis that could conceivably wipe out all life on earth, and that the required reductions in our collective carbon/ecological footprint can only be achieved under a socialist sytem.

The need to prevent the end of life on earth means that in the developed world, the average lifestyle will have to be drastically scaled back. It also means that while living standards in the third world will increase, they cannot reach the levels that most people currently enjoy in the developed world. Our planetary ecosystem simply can't tolerate it. Finally, The transformation to a socialist system must occur on a global scale, or the planet remains condemned to the mass ecological crisis that could wipe out all life on earth.

Ecosocialism or death. There is no alternative.

[Bilan]

One part of ecosocialism is the traditional socialist/marxist demand for an end to private property, and an end to private, for profit ventures of any kind, in order to achieve a classless society. The other part of ecosocialism is that humanity must drastically reduce our collective carbon/ecological footprint in order to prevent a mass ecological crisis that could conceivably wipe out all life on earth, and that the required reductions in our collective carbon/ecological footprint can only be achieved under a socialist sytem.

The need to prevent the end of life on earth means that in the developed world, the average lifestyle will have to be drastically scaled back.
It also means that while living standards in the third world will increase, they cannot reach the levels that most people currently enjoy in the developed world. Our planetary ecosystem simply can't tolerate it.

That's simply not true. The environmental consequences are not determined by the standards of living in the Industrialized centres of the world, and particularly in the West, (for in poorer countries the living standards are disgustingly low), but because of the fuels and energy sources used, and the consequences of over use of these sources.

A post capitalist society has the ability to develop ecologically sustainable methods of energy (such as Nuclear fusion), because the demand for profit, and the necessity of 'the bottom line', become obsolete.

Thus, environmentally 'friendly' means of energy, which don't require force people to have use less of anything. We don't want to go backward technology wise, we want to go forward - that means developing new technology to over come the current environmental crisis. Going forward, not backward, will solve the problem.

There may even be the need for a global population reduction in order to allow for a decent standard of living, even to ensure that our planet can feed all its inhabitants.

How barbaric.

[BobKKKindle$]

The need to prevent the end of life on earth means that in the developed world, the average lifestyle will have to be drastically scaled back. It also means that while living standards in the third world will increase, they cannot reach the levels that most people currently enjoy in the developed world. You have not explained the causative link - why does reducing man's impact on the environment require a fall in living standards? We can maintain our current living standards if we change the way we use resources. For example, there would be no need to reduce electricity consumption if we changed to the use of renewable forms of energy, such as wind power, in place of our current dependence on fossil fuels. The fall of capitalism will enable us to reduce fossil fuel use, because the companies which currently have an economic interest in promoting the use of these resources will not be able to exercise political power, the decision of how power should be produced will no longer be determined by what is most profitable, but by what best meets the needs of our species. The funds currently used for wasteful purposes, such as creating more destructive forms of weaponry, can be shifted to energy research, so that wind power (and other renewables) can be used on a large scale.

Marx explained that Communism can only occur with the abolition of material scarcity, so how can you reconcile your demands for reductions in consumption with the material prerequisites of Communism?


There may even be the need for a global population reduction in order to allow for a decent standard of living, even to ensure that our planet can feed all its inhabitants.Why would global population reduction be necessary? A greater population means that there are more scientists available to create new innovation which will enable us to preserve the environment - as explained by Esther Boserup in her rebuttal of Malthus' theory of population crisis - link (http://www.yorku.ca/anderson/population/boserup.htm) We already have sufficient food resources to feed everyone, and to provide for a population greater than that which actually exists - the problem is the way in which food is distributed, not scarcity.