Radical Socialist
Be Vocal Against the Torture of Underage Woman Domestic
The first ecosocialist manifesto was an attempt to introduce the notion of ecosocialism at a time when many people were wondering how the traditional left, with its focus on material progress and higher living standards for the working class and the poor could fit with measures to tackle the environmental crisis, which to many means lower living standards and a retreat from industrialisation.
By comparison, the draft second manifesto seems almost like a declaration of war.
It opens with:
“Humanity today faces a stark choice: ecosocialism or barbarism.”
Now this locates us clearly in the socialist tradition (with “eco” added, so something different as well) but I guess only insiders would get the reference to Rosa Luxemburg, elaborating on Engels, in the Junius Pamphlet:
Friedrich Engels once said: “Bourgeois society stands at the crossroads, either transition to socialism or regression into barbarism.” What does “regression into barbarism” mean to our lofty European civilization? Until now, we have all probably read and repeated these words thoughtlessly, without suspecting their fearsome seriousness. A look around us at this moment shows what the regression of bourgeois society into barbarism means. This world war is a regression into barbarism. The triumph of imperialism leads to the annihilation of civilization. At first, this happens sporadically for the duration of a modern war, but then when the period of unlimited wars begins it progresses toward its inevitable consequences. Today, we face the choice exactly as Friedrich Engels foresaw it a generation ago: either the triumph of imperialism and the collapse of all civilization as in ancient Rome, depopulation, desolation, degeneration — a great cemetery.
Now I have no problem with this approach, but without knowing the story, I wonder how many people coming perhaps to us for the first time would read it as a sort of ultimatum: you’re with us or with the barbarians. It continues then with a somewhat apocalyptic picture.
Again, people reading this aren’t likely to be complete amateurs but I don’t think that, for most people, the “stark choice” is that clear (nor the science). There is still a lot of “patient explaining” to do and presenting it in these Manichean terms means many people will simply say that there is no hope. Most people do not feel they have much choice at all in the face of global problems and in the absence of much in the way of anti-systematic movements.
Now compare that with the first 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.
It seems to me that says something similar re eco-catastrophe but it is concrete (rather than catastrophic) and invites the reader to look at where, we think, the solutions may lie.
I think we’d have to explain more before saying that climate change is “an act of aggression by the rich against the poor” and while I agree that it is in “capitalism’s DNA”, that needs explaining too. If this is intended for insiders then fine (tho it hardly seems necessary), for outsiders it needs to be more transitional, I think.
I think the para that begins: “In our lifetimes, these assaults on the earth have accelerated …” is much better, tho the quantitative to qualitative change is insider-speak too. Again, it and the next two paras are better.
The next section, Capitalist Strategies for Change, is back to style of the opening — surely it is a surprise for most people that capital sets the terms of the debate — and terms like the “means of production of knowledge” make it sound like insiders talking. Again, there is the sense of an ultimatum — of people serving two masters. That may be well and good when we are on the verge of the final push to end the rule of capital but now … it reads like scolding scoundrels.
To say “there is every reason to doubt” after the other claims seems like preaching to the choir.
I think references to mechanisms are too specific but just feel like by the end of page two that we have succeeded only in making despair convincing. Surely something about “balance of forces” and resistance are essential … something about the new world being born in the womb of the old … with us as midwives should be much earlier.
The final section on “the ecosocialist alternative” is where we all want readers to end up — not with a sigh of relief that there is some slim hope — but with a recognition that they are able to become part of a process to make the world a better place. Again I think the style of the first manifesto — acknowledging errors of the past, building on past movements and acknowledging the problems we all face, is more inviting. The addition of gender (while a bit token) is a big improvement on the older version. Now look at the closing paragraphs.
In the first:
“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 [sic!] 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.”
In the second draft:
“This Manifesto is not an academic statement, but a call to action. The entrenched ruling elites are incredibly powerful, and the forces of radical opposition are still small. But those forces are the only hope that the catastrophic course of capitalist “growth” will be halted. Walter Benjamin defined revolutions as being not the locomotive of history, but as humanity reaching for the emergency breaks of the train, before it plunges into an abyss.”
I just can’t help but feel than the framing of the former is better. Again I don’t disagree with the general line of the document but I think it needs to be more transitional and explanatory. We are a tiny fraction of a movement — and this document originates as far as I can tell from outside the existing Green movements (like the Global Greens who are presently meeting in Rio).
We have learned to become suspicious of setting up “internationals” that are not based on real movements, so we should be clear how this discussion can serve as a means of clarification for us while presenting our ideas in the most transitional way — by making hope plausible.
Joel Kovel and Michael Lowy launched the proposal for an Ecosocialist Manifesto
A yawning rift has opened up in the climate negotiations just ahead of the Copenhagen conference of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change beginning on December 7. It centres on the twin issues of responsibility for climate change—unfolding through extreme weather events, rising sea-levels and rapid melting of ice-sheets and glaciers—, and sharing the burden to remedy it. Going by climate science, the responsibility rests primarily with the industrialised Global North for its emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs). The North accounts for more than three-fourths of GHG concentrations in the atmosphere.
However, going by the brutal logic of power, the picture is different. The North is trying to shirk its responsibility and pass on a good portion of its burden on to the South’s underprivileged people. This is doubly unjust: it’s the South’s poor who are most vulnerable to climate change. They’re already suffering its consequences through more frequent and ferocious cyclones, erratic rainfall, increased water scarcity, and growing destruction, devastation and death.
The UNFCCC negotiations are deadlocked not just over the percentages by which the North must reduce its GHG emissions, or its financial obligation to compensate the South. There’s an impasse on fundamentals—the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” enshrined in the Convention, and a clear distinction between the North’s legally binding obligations and the South’s voluntary Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs), for which it must be paid.
These distinctions were written into the UNFCCC’s 1997 Kyoto Protocol and the 2007 Bali Action Plan after protracted debate. Kyoto mandated the Northern countries, called Annex 1, to cut their emissions from their 1990 levels by a modest 5.2 percent during the “first commitment period” ending 2012. The target will be missed. In the European Union, “the good boy in the climate cast”, only Germany, Britain and Sweden will achieve their targets. The worst culprit is the United States, which refused to ratify Kyoto, and has raised its emissions by 14 percent.
The US under President Obama says it’ll return to the UNFCCC process, but at a price: dismantle the Kyoto Protocol, abolish the principle of North-South (or any other) differentiation, and negotiate an altogether new agreement, which sets ineffective, sub-critical targets. Australia has developed such a draft with national “schedules” but no internationally binding commitments. If it prevails, there’ll be no Kyoto, no differentiated North-South burden-sharing, no stringent compliance or penalties. Such a single, artificially homogenous and paltry agreement won’t prevent dangerous, irreversible climate change.
No deal would be clearly preferable to such a bad deal. But so desperate are most Northern countries to bring the US on board at any cost that they’re prepared to renege on their own past commitments, including each rich country’s “comparable effort” at mitigating climate change in proportion to its responsibility and financial-technological capacity.
This poses a conundrum. The Kyoto Protocol is far from perfect; in fact, it’s full of flaws, including low emission reduction targets which aren’t firmly linked to GHG concentrations and temperatures; omission of aviation and shipping; and lack of compliance requirements and penalties. Kyoto promotes the Clean Development Mechanism under which polluting Northern corporations get generous emissions quotas. If they exceed them, they needn’t cut emissions, as would be logical. Instead, they can buy cheap carbon credits from Southern projects, which supposedly cut or avert emissions.
Most CDM projects do nothing of the sort. For instance, two-thirds of Indian credits are earned by two companies which first produce a GHG refrigerant called HFC-23, and then destroy it! Most of the dams for which credits are claimed worldwide were already under construction or completed before applying for CDM. The Corrupt Destructive Mechanism lets the North buy its way out of emissions cuts—and buy it cheap.
Kyoto needs reform. But it does have a rational kernel. That lies in its acknowledgement of the rich countries’ historical responsibility for climate change. Kyoto imposes quantifiable emissions reduction obligations on them. It’s the only legally binding climate agreement the world has, with time-bound targets. It would be dangerous to abandon it for a loose unenforceable deal. The US wants to do just that.
The Southern countries, represented by the G-77+China bloc, have strongly defended the Protocol as “an international and legally binding treaty and the most important instrument embedding the commitment of Annex 1 parties”, collectively and individually. The proposed new agreement would “drastically water down” their commitments. Most Northern countries’ rationale for supporting it is that it might be able to include the US. However, says the G-77, going out of a binding protocol with collective and individual targets into a new agreement without internationally binding targets means “taking the international climate regime many steps backwards”. Besides, the US may not even sign the agreement.
The developed countries indeed want to dilute their commitments. Instead of the 25-40 percent emissions reductions by 2020 (over 1990), recommended by climate scientists in 2007, and the 40-45 percent needed in the light of recent scientific developments, they have only made reduction pledges of 16-23 percent, excluding the US. If the US climate bill’s target is included, the figure falls to 11-18 percent and 10-23 percent, according to different estimates. Such reductions won’t stabilise the climate. The G-77+China is right in criticising these measly offers as a breach of trust. The Climate Convention was a grand bargain, under which the North would lead in emissions reductions as part of a global cooperative effort.
India must stiffly oppose the North’s attempt to renege on that bargain. Yet, certain lobbies want India to dump the G-77 for more exclusive groupings. The G-77 represents 130-odd Southern countries, the bulk of them poor and backward, as are most of India’s people. But these lobbies want India to join the world’s High Table by signing a bad climate deal that pleases the North. Most Indian diplomats privately speak of the developing countries and Non-Alignment with contempt and antipathy. Some want India aligned with the US in the climate talks.
That’s the crux of Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh’s leaked letter to Prime Minister Singh, in which he explicitly asks that India should “not stick with G-77 but be embedded in G-20 …” Mr Ramesh also writes: “If the Australian proposal … maintains this basic distinction … of differential obligations we should have no great theological objections.” But the Australian proposal demolishes the distinction.
This is a recipe for a confused, unprincipled climate stand, which is unworthy of a nation that aspires to global leadership. Its advocates are only concerned with the narrow interests of the Indian elite, barely one-tenth of the population, which is addicted to high-consumption lifestyles and rising emissions. The elite doesn’t want a strong climate deal because that’ll restrain its consumption. A majority of Indians, by contrast, have a stake in a strong deal because the burden of climate change which falls disproportionately on them will grow under a weak deal.
A principled approach to the climate negotiations must put the poor at the centre and acknowledge that the climate crisis and the developmental crisis—which perpetuates poverty—are integrally linked. Climate change will aggravate poverty and exacerbate inequality, undoing the right of the poor to fulfil their basic human needs and live with dignity. It’s imperative to combine developmental equity and poverty eradication with climate effectiveness. A defining criterion of a strong climate deal is that it reduces the burden on the underprivileged.
India will face hard choices at Copenhagen, where several scenarios are conceivable—from optimistic to middling outcomes, to complete collapse. The best scenario is one where the North makes deep, early emissions cuts (40 percent by 2020); the bigger Southern countries agree to 15-25 percent voluntary cuts (NAMAs); and there’s adequate funding. Under a middling scenario, there’ll be a strong agreement on fundamentals, but not on emissions cuts and finances; nevertheless, all agree to negotiate numbers within a time-bound period.
Of course, the talks may collapse because there’s no agreement on anything and some countries walk out. This would be unfortunate. But the truly nightmarish scenario is one which “greenwashes” a bad agreement: the North agrees to low and paltry cuts such as 7-15 percent by 2020, with no compliance or penalties, and only a fraction of the funding needed materialises. Such a deal will fail to stabilise the climate, but lock the world into an emissions-intensive trajectory that aggravates both climate change and the developmental crisis.
India should walk out of the talks rather than agree to such “greenwash”. In the few weeks left before Copenhagen, India should do its utmost to consolidate the G-77+China position, lobby Northern governments, including the US, when Dr Singh meets President Obama late this month, and make voluntary commitments to show that it’s more serious about combating climate change than appears—thanks to its ambivalence on Himalayan glacier melting and its lip service to poverty eradication, even while practising elitist policies. India must be flexible on transparency and generous on delivering modern energy services to its poor. But it should be hardnosed about holding the North’s feet to the fire. There must be no compromise here.
For any queries, email us at:
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Subscribe for Updates
This work by Radical Socialist is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 India License.
Radical Socialist is an internationalist Marxist organisation based in India.