- Email: [email protected]
Eco-socialism or eco-capitalism? A critical analysis of humanity's fundamental choices
Book re6iews
value of natural resources’’ (p. 209). If this is the case, one might ask whether the real ‘root cause’ of biodiversity loss is to be found in the circumstances of the 10 regions studied, or rather, in the unwillingness of the wealthy nations to compensate the poor for providing services the former value far more highly at present. David Simpson Energy and Natural Resources Di6ision, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC USA E-mail: [email protected] PII: S 0 9 2 1 - 8 0 0 9 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 2 5 8 - 0
Eco-socialism or eco-capitalism? A critical analysis of humanity’s fundamental choices Saral Sarkar, Zed books, London and New York, 1999, 304 pp. ISBN 1-856-49600-7 Does anybody remember socialism? In case you have forgotten, the essence of socialism is about liberty and human equality. Socialism is a dream of the world turned upside down, of a true democracy for all humanity that extends into the economic realm, and does not depend on money and power. This interpretation of socialism, which has strong connections to Marx and 19th century socialism (see e.g. Francis Wheelan’s recent Marx biography), means that most of the so-called existing ‘socialism’ of the 20th century, with its economical and environmental disasters in the former Eastern block, was not socialism at all. Saral Sarkar’s main reason for attempting to build an eco-socialist alternative to capitalism (and its ecological version eco-capitalism) is because he rejects the values capitalism represents: ‘exploitation, brutal competition, worship of mammon, profit and greed as motive’. If you have already had enough, you can stop reading here. This book will be tough reading for anyone who is not interested in questioning capitalist market economy. But for those who are
135
willing to do this, Sarkar has written an important book. Before reading the book, I knew nothing about Saral Sarkar. He has since the early 1980s been involved in the Green movement in Germany, where he is now living. Sarkar’s main point in the book is that a truly ecological economy is possible only within a socialist socio-political set-up. Socialism has a future, he argues, because of the values it represents— equality, cooperation, solidarity, freedom and democracy. But socialism must learn from its mistakes. And it must ‘learn the ecological lesson’. Learning the ecological lesson is where this book connects to natural resource management and ecological economy. In much of ecological economics, there is an implicit assumption that the market forces, properly handled, can help us towards a sustainable society with low resource use intensity. One of the book’s strengths is pointing out that, because of the fundamental forces driving capitalist markets, this trick may not be possible within a capitalistic system. In fact, there is a strong contradiction between a ‘low-intensity’ world and the inherent growth pressure of the capitalistic enterprise. This is nowhere more evident than when people use the ludicrous term ‘sustainable growth’ without understanding that with respect to resources this requires an infinite world. However, the solution to this problem is another question, on which Sarkar has no final word but a lot to offer in the discussion. He suggests that the world is closer to ‘the limits to growth’ than is usually assumed. Sarkar’s main points can be summarized in a few statements. He insightfully argues that the demise of Soviet empire was caused by a combination of encountering the limits to growth, e.g. exploiting natural resources in remote areas and facing ecological degradation, and an inflexible political system with a degenerate political e´ lite that inevitably would fail to create the ‘new man’ necessary to tackle the limits to growth problem. Then he points out that the prospects are bleak to obtain the cheap energy sources necessary to run the capitalist system in the future. In particular, oil is a unique energy source that is (or has been) both cheap to obtain and has an unusually high energy content. None of the proposed alternatives
136
Book re6iews
come even near the favorable ratio of energy input to extracted energy that oil has had during the 20th century. A large part of the book is devoted to a discussion of why eco-capitalism cannot work and why an eco-socialist alternative is necessary. Sarkar suggests that, because of its inherent exploitative, competitive and unequal nature, capitalism can nowhere solve the problems of a full, human-dominated world, if we at the same time want peace, stability in our lives, justice and equal opportunities. ‘‘Moral growth, ethical behavior, and co-operation are … impossible for any kind of capitalism’’. I agree that this fundamental problem may require new solutions, and that the ecosocialist perspective is fruitful. But is eco-socialism the solution? Sarkar discusses a number of conditions that have to be fulfilled. Among these are the contraction of industrial economies towards a steady state, which will entail a lower standard of living, which in turn can only be accomplished if the sacrifices are born proportionally. Equality is a prerequisite for the retreat, which must be planned and orderly. Moral growth in a moral economy and society are necessary to achieve sustainability. The final chapter is titled ‘‘What about progress?’’. Sarkar concludes that an eco-socialist society is possible, but he also points out many of the obstacles on the way. These are not only economic, but may also be deeply engrained in human nature. For example, is the ‘new moral man’ possible at all? Sarkar has faith in human nature, stating that human egoism makes socialism necessary, and the human ability to be generous makes socialism possible. Sarkar’s book continually reminds the reader of that socialism is an ideology whose essence should be moral, beyond the pure self-interest of, in principle, powerless consumers in capitalistic market societies. Questions about justice, democracy, human value, equality, resource distribution and liberty for those without power will continue to haunt capitalistic societies with their inherent contradictions. Socialism, under new names perhaps, will live on as long as people want to change the world towards equality for all of mankind. As I read the book, commandante Marcos and his followers made their march into Mexico City— a
fitting example of my point. Ecological economy, with its moral connotations, is a better discussion partner for these views than most other branches of economy. However, there are also a number of problems that should be raised. I have already mentioned that although Sarkar’s eco-socialism is something completely different than ‘socialism’ in China and the Soviet Union, these connections will continue to plague any discussion of socialism. The lessons to be learnt from these disastrous examples of pseudosocialism still remain to be fully discussed, if socialism is to become a viable ideology again. Secondly, the biology that Sarkar uses to support some of his points is incorrect. For example, killing individuals of its own species is very common among other animals (cannibalism is ubiquitous), and there are many examples of animals, such as ants, actually protecting other species. Humans are not unique biologically, just a particular species with a perhaps uncommonly large plasticity in behaviour. Human nature is much more elusive than Sarkar suggests. Thirdly, and most important, there are some problems with Sarkar’s views on democracy, which are unclear (or perhaps the writing is unclear). In my view, the changes in society suggested by Sarkar require an all-encompassing democracy. In fact, democracy and public participation is the key to success if we aim at a world with low-intensity resource use. And here Sarkar slips occasionally. For example, he argues that ‘‘how much and what kinds of freedom and democracy would be possible … depend on how easy and difficult they would be to attain’’, quoting Hegel’s ‘‘freedom is the recognition of necessity’’. But the only way to overcome resistance to necessity and achieve a sustainable society is a true and full political and economic democracy. I wish that Sarkar had expanded on this subject, which is central to any discussion on socialism in the future. Democracy and socialism should be inseparable, just as democracy and sustainability are. In conclusion, this book is a useful treatise on limits to growth and how humanity might adapt to such limits. It is also a healthy antidote to many of the utopian advocates of capitalism. It
137
Book re6iews
does, however, require that you are already into Sarkar’s political agenda, at least in a general sense. If the limits to growth are indeed lurking behind the door, the book may become compulsory reading. But I feel that it is uncertain if limits to growth are really what will turn the world around. The foremost problem of today may instead be clashes between various more or less fundamentalistic regimes, from the west to the east, none of which puts much value on human lives, true democracy and sustainability. However, perhaps, as Sarkar implies, these two threats to humankind are more interconnected than we prefer to think. And eco-socialism may then be the only sustainable alternative to barbarism.
Janne Bengtsson Department of Ecology and Crop Production Science, SLU, Box 7043, Uppsala, Sweden Beijer International Institute of Ecological Economics, KVA, Stockholm, Sweden E-mail: [email protected] PII: S 0 9 2 1 - 8 0 0 9 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 2 5 9 - 2
value of natural resources’’ (p. 209). If this is the case, one might ask whether the real ‘root cause’ of biodiversity loss is to be found in the circumstances of the 10 regions studied, or rather, in the unwillingness of the wealthy nations to compensate the poor for providing services the former value far more highly at present. David Simpson Energy and Natural Resources Di6ision, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC USA E-mail: [email protected] PII: S 0 9 2 1 - 8 0 0 9 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 2 5 8 - 0
Eco-socialism or eco-capitalism? A critical analysis of humanity’s fundamental choices Saral Sarkar, Zed books, London and New York, 1999, 304 pp. ISBN 1-856-49600-7 Does anybody remember socialism? In case you have forgotten, the essence of socialism is about liberty and human equality. Socialism is a dream of the world turned upside down, of a true democracy for all humanity that extends into the economic realm, and does not depend on money and power. This interpretation of socialism, which has strong connections to Marx and 19th century socialism (see e.g. Francis Wheelan’s recent Marx biography), means that most of the so-called existing ‘socialism’ of the 20th century, with its economical and environmental disasters in the former Eastern block, was not socialism at all. Saral Sarkar’s main reason for attempting to build an eco-socialist alternative to capitalism (and its ecological version eco-capitalism) is because he rejects the values capitalism represents: ‘exploitation, brutal competition, worship of mammon, profit and greed as motive’. If you have already had enough, you can stop reading here. This book will be tough reading for anyone who is not interested in questioning capitalist market economy. But for those who are
135
willing to do this, Sarkar has written an important book. Before reading the book, I knew nothing about Saral Sarkar. He has since the early 1980s been involved in the Green movement in Germany, where he is now living. Sarkar’s main point in the book is that a truly ecological economy is possible only within a socialist socio-political set-up. Socialism has a future, he argues, because of the values it represents— equality, cooperation, solidarity, freedom and democracy. But socialism must learn from its mistakes. And it must ‘learn the ecological lesson’. Learning the ecological lesson is where this book connects to natural resource management and ecological economy. In much of ecological economics, there is an implicit assumption that the market forces, properly handled, can help us towards a sustainable society with low resource use intensity. One of the book’s strengths is pointing out that, because of the fundamental forces driving capitalist markets, this trick may not be possible within a capitalistic system. In fact, there is a strong contradiction between a ‘low-intensity’ world and the inherent growth pressure of the capitalistic enterprise. This is nowhere more evident than when people use the ludicrous term ‘sustainable growth’ without understanding that with respect to resources this requires an infinite world. However, the solution to this problem is another question, on which Sarkar has no final word but a lot to offer in the discussion. He suggests that the world is closer to ‘the limits to growth’ than is usually assumed. Sarkar’s main points can be summarized in a few statements. He insightfully argues that the demise of Soviet empire was caused by a combination of encountering the limits to growth, e.g. exploiting natural resources in remote areas and facing ecological degradation, and an inflexible political system with a degenerate political e´ lite that inevitably would fail to create the ‘new man’ necessary to tackle the limits to growth problem. Then he points out that the prospects are bleak to obtain the cheap energy sources necessary to run the capitalist system in the future. In particular, oil is a unique energy source that is (or has been) both cheap to obtain and has an unusually high energy content. None of the proposed alternatives
136
Book re6iews
come even near the favorable ratio of energy input to extracted energy that oil has had during the 20th century. A large part of the book is devoted to a discussion of why eco-capitalism cannot work and why an eco-socialist alternative is necessary. Sarkar suggests that, because of its inherent exploitative, competitive and unequal nature, capitalism can nowhere solve the problems of a full, human-dominated world, if we at the same time want peace, stability in our lives, justice and equal opportunities. ‘‘Moral growth, ethical behavior, and co-operation are … impossible for any kind of capitalism’’. I agree that this fundamental problem may require new solutions, and that the ecosocialist perspective is fruitful. But is eco-socialism the solution? Sarkar discusses a number of conditions that have to be fulfilled. Among these are the contraction of industrial economies towards a steady state, which will entail a lower standard of living, which in turn can only be accomplished if the sacrifices are born proportionally. Equality is a prerequisite for the retreat, which must be planned and orderly. Moral growth in a moral economy and society are necessary to achieve sustainability. The final chapter is titled ‘‘What about progress?’’. Sarkar concludes that an eco-socialist society is possible, but he also points out many of the obstacles on the way. These are not only economic, but may also be deeply engrained in human nature. For example, is the ‘new moral man’ possible at all? Sarkar has faith in human nature, stating that human egoism makes socialism necessary, and the human ability to be generous makes socialism possible. Sarkar’s book continually reminds the reader of that socialism is an ideology whose essence should be moral, beyond the pure self-interest of, in principle, powerless consumers in capitalistic market societies. Questions about justice, democracy, human value, equality, resource distribution and liberty for those without power will continue to haunt capitalistic societies with their inherent contradictions. Socialism, under new names perhaps, will live on as long as people want to change the world towards equality for all of mankind. As I read the book, commandante Marcos and his followers made their march into Mexico City— a
fitting example of my point. Ecological economy, with its moral connotations, is a better discussion partner for these views than most other branches of economy. However, there are also a number of problems that should be raised. I have already mentioned that although Sarkar’s eco-socialism is something completely different than ‘socialism’ in China and the Soviet Union, these connections will continue to plague any discussion of socialism. The lessons to be learnt from these disastrous examples of pseudosocialism still remain to be fully discussed, if socialism is to become a viable ideology again. Secondly, the biology that Sarkar uses to support some of his points is incorrect. For example, killing individuals of its own species is very common among other animals (cannibalism is ubiquitous), and there are many examples of animals, such as ants, actually protecting other species. Humans are not unique biologically, just a particular species with a perhaps uncommonly large plasticity in behaviour. Human nature is much more elusive than Sarkar suggests. Thirdly, and most important, there are some problems with Sarkar’s views on democracy, which are unclear (or perhaps the writing is unclear). In my view, the changes in society suggested by Sarkar require an all-encompassing democracy. In fact, democracy and public participation is the key to success if we aim at a world with low-intensity resource use. And here Sarkar slips occasionally. For example, he argues that ‘‘how much and what kinds of freedom and democracy would be possible … depend on how easy and difficult they would be to attain’’, quoting Hegel’s ‘‘freedom is the recognition of necessity’’. But the only way to overcome resistance to necessity and achieve a sustainable society is a true and full political and economic democracy. I wish that Sarkar had expanded on this subject, which is central to any discussion on socialism in the future. Democracy and socialism should be inseparable, just as democracy and sustainability are. In conclusion, this book is a useful treatise on limits to growth and how humanity might adapt to such limits. It is also a healthy antidote to many of the utopian advocates of capitalism. It
137
Book re6iews
does, however, require that you are already into Sarkar’s political agenda, at least in a general sense. If the limits to growth are indeed lurking behind the door, the book may become compulsory reading. But I feel that it is uncertain if limits to growth are really what will turn the world around. The foremost problem of today may instead be clashes between various more or less fundamentalistic regimes, from the west to the east, none of which puts much value on human lives, true democracy and sustainability. However, perhaps, as Sarkar implies, these two threats to humankind are more interconnected than we prefer to think. And eco-socialism may then be the only sustainable alternative to barbarism.
Janne Bengtsson Department of Ecology and Crop Production Science, SLU, Box 7043, Uppsala, Sweden Beijer International Institute of Ecological Economics, KVA, Stockholm, Sweden E-mail: [email protected] PII: S 0 9 2 1 - 8 0 0 9 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 2 5 9 - 2