“To theorize and to work toward realizing the goal of green socialism does not mean that we should not also fight for concrete and urgent reforms right now. Without any illusions about “clean capitalism,” we must work to impose on the powers that be – governments, corporations, international institutions – some elementary but essential immediate changes: [and then goes on to list some really radical changes such as drastic and enforceable reduction in the emission of greenhouse gases, the development of clean energy sources, and the elimination of nuclear energy, and war spending.]

So I disagree with the implication that the Declaration is ultraleft because it argues we sit by and wait for capitalism to be replaced with ecosocialism before the climate crisis can be confronted. This Declaration does assert “If capitalism remains the dominant social order, the best we can expect is unbearable climate conditions, an intensification of social crises and the spread of the most barbaric forms of class rule, as the imperialist powers fight among themselves and with the global south for continued control of the world’s diminishing resources.” Yes, this formulation is problematic. Just how much change in “real existing capitalism” is necessary to mount a successful campaign to avoid the tipping points which would result in catastrophic climate change (“C3”)? The Military Industrial Fossil Fuel Nuclear Terror Complex (“MIC”) is now hegemonic in real existing capitalism, with US imperialism being its front line enforcer. I have argued that the undermining and termination of MIC will remove the main obstacle to implementing a global prevention program to avoid C3 and at the same time will open up an unprecedented path out of capitalism (March 2009, Capitalism Nature Socialism; I will send a pdf upon request; dschwartzman@gmail.com). To be sure, we can construct computer models of sustainable reproduction of capital in a global solar capitalism. However, the historical legacy of real capitalist development makes its realization virtually impossible. A global ‘‘solar capitalism’’ is an illusionary prospect, because the level of red and green struggle required to solarize global capitalism will itself likely result in ecosocialist transition.

I think we all agree that replacing Capitalism with Ecosocialism cannot be a prerequisite to begin taking effective preventative action to avoid climate catastrophe. But ecosocialist theory and practice are essential to make this prevention possible, thereby creating a real opportunity to end the global rule of capital on our planet.

Carl Davidson wrote:

“Moreover, I have no idea what the Belem document means by ‘productivity socialism,’ which it opposes.”

(The Declaration states: “It [ecoscocialist movement] criticizes both capitalist “market ecology” and productivist socialism, which ignored the earth’s equilibrium and limits. It redefines the path and goal of socialism within an ecological and democratic framework.”)

I interpret “productivist socialism” as the dominant form of real existing socialism of the 20th Century. On the other hand, the one real living model of ecosocialism, with all its imperfections, is a survival from 20th Century socialism, Cuba. The WWF’s Living Planet Report 2006 assesses sustainable development using the United Nations Development Programme’s (UNDP) Human Development Index (HDI) and the ecological footprint. The index is calculated using life expectancy, literacy and education, and per capita GDP. The UNDP considers an HDI value of more than 0.8 to be high human development. According to the ecological footprint, a measure of human demand on the biosphere, 1.8 global hectares per person or less denotes sustainability. The only country in the world that met both of the above criteria is Cuba. ((Viva La Revolución Energética, Laurie Guevara-Stone, Solar Energy International). And if Cuba, a living example of ecosocialist transition, could accomplish so much, under such difficult circumstances imposed by U.S. Imperialism, just think of what is really possible for our future!

Finally, I propose CCDS substitute Ecosocialism for Socialism in our name, making Ecosocialism our “brand”, since the only viable socialism of the 21st Century is Ecosocialism and I know of no other U.S. socialist group to proudly proclaim itself as ecosocialist (our Metro DC CCDS has by its website name redandgreen.org and its contents).

And recognizing its imperfections, the Belem Ecosocialist Declaration still inspires and envisions a 21st Century Socialism. I have no regrets in signing it and urge others to do likewise. And lets get on with the actual struggle isolating MIC, defeating its Imperial Agenda and helping to create a broad class base for truly clean energy, green jobs and drastic and rapid cuts in carbon emissions with a chance to prevent C3.

At our last CCDS convention we adopted a resolution that said in part “CCDS asserts that a successful “What is to be done” for a climate change plan requires a socialist point of view. This eco-socialist perspective means a realistic, scientific and humanistic based analysis of environmental changes, the related economics and political issues and the consequences of addressing these factors all based on the interests of the majority of the world’s people. To obtain this plan will require a mass based demand on the current world leadership, both those in power and those controlling the resources. This leadership must be required to truthfully inform people of the specific dangers and likely time lines of climate change and the science based realities of effectively countering climate changes. This leadership must also quickly develop and implement a global plan based on preventing as much as possible of the damages from climate change and all in the interests of the majority of the people of the world.”

In essence, we and the world are facing some externally defined deadlines, tipping points that are not only scientific, but also political. The choices discussed in the comments above can be seen as asking whether we should accept an adaptive or preventative strategy. Each approach can have many facets and steps, but the question of whether we ultimately succeed is determined by whether we prevent sufficient climate catastrophes that we have the time and means of reaching any of the social and political goals.

Therefore if not socialists, who will make sure the public understands and demands a winning strategy against the irreparable catastrophes of climate change? You only have to look our collective failures to prevent or even prepare for the many relatively smaller and easier challenges and resulting catastrophes such as Katrina, Haiti, and so many others.

People may be fearful of the coming storms, but they will better prepare if they know what to do. That is our job, all of us together and unafraid to point out both the scientific and political realities. And I think we fail to be relevant if we don’t include this as part of our publicly professed strategy.

Walter Teague 3/22/2010.

Here is what I would substitute for the paragraph on militarism, which currently does not define what militarism is:

“But while the retirement plans of workers evaporate and our dreams of education and advancement are postponed, the war machine thrives. The public wealth, the product of our labor and sacrifice, that should be funding libraries, museums, earth-friendly industries, colleges and school is instead drained by the powerful weapons manufacturers and their many friends in government and in the media to feed their own warped dreams and hopes for military adventures, ever more exotic killing machines and endless wars that waste our children, our futures and decimate entire nations around the globe. Sanity and survival require that imperialist ambitions must yield to a new global policy based on abolishing nuclear weapons, reducing conventional forces, closing of foreign bases, and reliance on diplomacy over confrontation.”

The following article was submitted to various left/liberal journals, like The Nation, and the Progressive Populist.

The most critical issue raised by the current world capitalist meltdown has been almost totally ignored by the liberal/left media. Is the systemic crisis simply due to Republican greed and recklessness, or are we entering the period of the final breakdown of the system of private ownership of the means of production and finance. Marx long ago predicted a terminal crisis would eventually be inevitable due to the basic contradictions of capitalism. The crisis has of course been exacerbated by the Republicans, who represent the most divorced-from-reality sector of the “ruling class”. But their policies have often been supported and abetted by Banker Democrats like Summers and Geithner, who are hard at work bending Obama’s ear.
Before the presidential election I sent an article to many liberal and left journals trying to raise this most basic of questions, but hardly anyone seems to think it was relevant enough to print. Only one small artistic-ecological-poetic journal called Plastic Ocean was interested in it. Apparently ecological poets are not so wedded to the delusion that their future is dependent on some miracle comeback of humane “managed capitalism”.
In my previous article I referred to the three basic contradictions of capitalism, the economic and ecological contradictions, plus a third contradiction which I proposed, the psychological contradiction., This last contradiction postulates that capitalists can only continue to maintain their power by controlling the mindset and perceptions of the populace. The fact that left/liberals are not focused on whether the system itself is the problem attests to the success of the exploitation of the collective psyche by the ruling power structure. Think about it.
In this article I’ll try to clarify what Marx meant by the basic economic contradiction of capitalism. Marx did not predict that capitalism is doomed because it is an evil system, he made no such value judgment. Rather, he proved, for the sake of argument, that there are contradictory mechanisms inherent in the capitalist economic structure which cannot help but lead to insoluble crises in which the financial/economic structure will no longer be able to function., Just take a look out the window. Everyone seems to agree that the recovery of the system depends on consumers spending giant gobs of money, at the same time that millions are becoming jobless, homeless, and altogether lousy credit risks. This contradiction is not just an unhappy coincidence, it is the inevitable result of the first contradiction of capitalism, generally known as the Private Expropriation of Socially Produced Wealth. People work collectively in vast economic enterprises to produce what society needs to survive, but the proceeds of that labor are privately expropriated., The owners of the major means of production make their decisions in order to maximize their profit. This is just ducky with the stockholders, but in the long run it contradicts the aggregate interests of the population. The owners will do everything possible in order to not pay the workers the full value of what they produce, or there would be no profit. Since the workers, taken as a whole, cannot buy back all they produce, the capitalists need to continually expand, to capture foreign markets, resources, and labor power. Liberals would like to think that capitalists can be convinced to be nice and not exploit underdeveloped nations, but according to Dialectical Materialist (Marxist) theory, the Capitalists can’t help themselves. Those who didn’t exploit went broke long ago. We’re all aware of the many ways capitalists, aided by government collusion, have ingeniously exploited labor through outsourcing, busting unions, deregulation, privatization, tax breaks for moving overseas, turning workers into part-time “contractors” with no benefits or protection, etc. Modern corporate charters even conveniently make it illegal to take into account anything but maximizing profits, or their shareholders can sue them. Everything is done by Capital to lower the buying power of working people in order to increase short-term profits, but these are the very same workers the system depends on to CONSUME. For those whose wages are too low, we have the credit card system. Can’t afford a house, we’ll give you a sub-prime mortgage, then bundle it and speculate upon it in the market. In a system where labor is systematically undermined, speculation becomes a mainstay of the economy. Vast sectors of the economy become a giant ponzi scheme. Madoff was a pioneer, How the basic economic contradiction is directly related to all the problems of budget deficits, trade deficits, deflation, inflation, housing bubbles, stock bubbles, and banking bubbles should be at the center of all the discussions of the current crisis.
Obama is a brilliant capitalist. He not only knows that starving and homeless people are not good consumers, but he seems to actually care about people. In his first address to the joint session of Congress, Obama talked about great goals, a green economy, better schools, available healthcare, and modernizing our economy to compete in the 21st century. Wonderful goals, but impossible to achieve without coming to grips with the fact that “we the people” and our government do no own the economy. The economy is owned by private corporations., This obvious problem is usually completely ignored. The only time nationalizing an industry or company is discussed is when that industry is going broke. What a deal. Put the money losers in public hands, and leave the profitable businesses in private hands. Somehow I don’t think that would work. Until the commanding heights of industry and finance are all in public hands all the contradictions will continue to deepen. In Marxist terms, we need social, rather than private, expropriation or socially produced wealth. The Relations of Productions (i.e. capitalist/worker, or slave owner/slave) are out of synch with the forces of production, and can no longer utilize these forces sufficiently. Most ironic of all, all our \great technological advances are serving to deepen the contradictions and crises in the system.
Marxism predicts that the development of technology will bring about the downfall of the system. Capitalists look at all advances in technology as ways to make their enterprises more cost effective. Replace workers with robots and computers. Great idea. And moving factories overseas is made much easier through technological advances. We were told we’d all get new jobs in “information technology”. Blame it all on the individual’s lack of proper expertise. This “rationalizing “ of enterprises is great for the bottom line in the short term, but destroys the consumer base of society in the long term. The more computerized technology is put to use, the deeper the contradictions become.
Marx said that the ruling power structure controls the parameters of the public discussion and debates of society. Discussions of whether private corporations should be allowed to own our economy are never heard And why do most left/liberals seem to accept the common notion that real socialism is dead? If socialism is discussed, it is usually limited to the benefits of social democratic welfare policies, like health insurance, social security subsidized housing, etc. Social welfare policies are completely separate from the question of real socialism, which is all about who owns the major means of production in society, and who has to sell their labor power to survive. Public spending is of course very important but it’s dependent on the tax base, and if no one’s working, the coffers are bare.
Right-wing think tanks are already hard at work trying to convince us that to stabilize the economic situation we will need to further cut entitlements and all public spending, Make the poor poorer, that’s fix things. Obama is not immune to these pressures, especially regarding entitlements. The liberal left needs to begin to inject into this debate the question of who owns the major productive forces of society (large factories, mines, industrial farms, power grids, etc.) and the need to use these productive forces for the public good.
Just how the major means of production can be put into public hands is a complicated question. And it doesn’t mean we have to collectivize small entrepreneurships or corner grocery stores. But unless we begin to deal with the question of who owns our major means of production, the human species may not be around much longer.

Submitted by Alan Weinerman, who is a Political Psychologist living in San Francisco, and an original member of the CCDS.

Submitted by Ann Fagan Ginger

1. Although I believe we at times need to work in the campaigns of progressive Dems., I certainly DO NOT FEEL that someone who does not believe in that work should not be this organization. That would go totally against our principles of inclusiveness.

2. I also disagree that it is wrong to disagree with a proposal without having an alternative. I am quite sure that almost all of us has, at times, disagreed with an idea without being able to come up with another proposal at the time. Come on now!

Without any preamble explaining the purpose or the relationship of the “Draft List” to the “CCDS Goal and Principles Document” is the authors’ intention to substitute seven “Basic Principles” for the G&P document, to amend the G&P document, to offer seven points for discussion, or to present a shorthand summary of CCDS goals and principles? Some discussion on the Boston chapter’s part would provide some framework of the chapter’s views of CCDS.

This last Saturday, I enjoyed the opportunity to engage in an extended and stimulating discussion with CCDS Co-chair Jim Campbell over lunch in Charleston, SC. Uppermost among his concerns was how to build CCDS and attendance to the CCDS convention from the South.

He expressed satisfaction with the G&P document and the unfolding process of its development. He emphasized the importance of the fluidity and dynamism of the current political situation. He concluded that restraint from coming to definitive and conclusive positions in favor of emphasis on the processes of developing the struggle makes the document and CCDS more accessible. He mentioned the points on socialism as an example, with content and direction but without too refined a program that becomes dogmatic.

Jim’s viewpoint meshes with Marta Harnecker’s point #2-5 in her Ideas for the Struggle: “More important than creating a powerful party with a large number of militants is to raise a political project that reflects the population’s most deeply felt aspirations, and thus win their minds and hearts. What is important is that its politics succeeds in procuring the support of the masses and consensus in the majority of society.” And in #2-11: “The level of hegemony obtained by a political organization cannot be measured by the number of political positions that have been won. What is fundamental is that those who occupy leading positions in diverse movements and organizations take up as their own and implement the proposals elaborated by the organization, despite not belonging to it.”

So point #1 of the Boston Draft List does not take into account the potential of CCDS as a leading voice of the left whose Marxist and collective voice can provide analysis and programmatic direction to the broader movement without CCDS being in practical leadership of every initiative. Point #1 offers a mechanical fix that is untenable.

Point #1 does state the important dialectical relationship between theory and practice. As I see it, CCDS’ role is to develop and advance political theory concretely based on our observations and experience in various struggles in order to articulate and argue a political program that unites the labor movement into a class struggle organization, coalesces the forces in struggle for healthcare, jobs, and peace into a united front against the main enemy – the financial oligarchy and their political servants.

In order to accomplish that task, the quantity of our experience must be distilled collectively into a qualitative new program that is heard and adopted by the mass movement. Because we are there and involved, CCDS program must reflect the dialectical relationship between the needs of the movement…the pressure from below…and the political next step forward.

In this context, Point #2 is counter intuitive because it limits the range of possibilities for CCDS to recruit from among the various mass political and social trends that are developing among the working class and its various components, in social formations, and within the Democratic Party and among independent and third party activists. It stands to reason that in this period there will be different levels of interest and of commitment to CCDS programs and activities…a dynamic and fluid situation. For the national and local leadership of CCDS, the core issue around membership is educational work related to the concrete struggles of the members and potential members that effectively addresses the level of experience and understanding at hand.

If Point #3 is about being a public organization, then where and when that step will strengthen the individual’s and/or chapter’s work, it should be taken. If it is a step that isolates, then the situation should be monitored for the right opportunity. This is really not a principled question, but a tactical question.

My only quibble with Point #4 is why we commit to respect these leaders rather than to follow these leaders. They are more the working class that is the agent of change in capitalist society than groups that have contributed to progressive achievements. But the point is important because without continually raising this point at ever level, consciousness erodes due to the constant pressure of the bourgeois culture.

In relation to the CCDS Goals & Principles document under discussion and slated for even more discussion at the convention, Point #5 is a key thread in this document. As the point stands in the Boston Draft, it lacks content and meaning.

Point #6 militates against Jim Campbell’s point of avoiding dogmatism. Who is the current leadership whose policies are opposed? Do we oppose everything? And is opposition to every policy a matter of principle, or are some positions in relation to the two major parties tactical. The premise of this point is unsustainable. We should encourage people who are fighting in any arena for what we regard as progressive and/or socialist principles, ideals, issues, or demands to join CCDS, because we offer them tools to make their efforts more rewarding.

Point #7 is well taken, although I don’t think well defined. Constructive criticism is a dialectical process of building collective unity and growth by comparing experiences. In that sense, constructive criticism must also include self-criticism, for what do we know that has not been learned through mistakes? Expressing opposition to ideas stimulates the search for better alternatives, so it is a creative process that cannot be imposed by rule.

Draft List of Basic Principles for the CCDS

1. The CCDS has issued numerous statements on current political events which show considerable analytic clarity in presenting the issues from a progressive and left standpoint. However, this has not translated into corresponding impact on the movement. We need to give more emphasis on building organization to be effective. Therefore, every political statement should have a connection to a CCDS action program that is part of our larger purpose and goals. This will demonstrate our understanding of the dialectical connection between theory and practice.
2. Being a member requires commitment to either help carry out action decisions by CCDS that are adopted democratically, or not to actively block those efforts.
3. We adhere to the principle of democracy/transparency, including open knowledge of who we are and the decisions that we make.
4. We have an unambiguous commitment to respect the leadership of people of color, our left labor leaders, and our women leaders, acknowledging both the essential historic and current contributions of these groups to all major progressive achievements.
5. We are committed to support non-electoral and electoral activities that have dialectical connections between them.
6. While recognizing our own principled opposition to the policies of the current leadership of the two major parties, we do not encourage membership in CCDS for those who have a principled objection to involvement with and support of any progressive elected officials and candidates who are associated with either of those parties.
7. We need to establish basic rules of conduct for our activities, including commitment to the principle of constructive criticism (only expressing opposition to ideas and actions when you can suggest better alternatives).

1) re: IV. CCDS: Its Outlook and Role, add to first paragraph,

“Members are expected to either support the democratically decided CCDS program of activities or to not stand in the way of implementation.”

rationale: The paragraph emphasizes the rights of members in formulating policy, but has nothing to say about the expectations of members. If a relationship is to work, it has to be a two way street.

2) re: III. The Progressive Majority: A Strategy for Change, add following the first paragraph:

“The progressive majority is the strategy with most potential to make basic social change leading to socialism for the following reasons:

a) a broad left-center coalition will involve the large numbers of people necessary to create the political power to make far reaching progressive change;

b) bringing out the connections among the many issues makes clear the systemic nature of the problem, which is capitalism;

c) the struggle for democracy demonstrates concretely the concern socialists have for the quality of life of working people and lays the foundations for the democratic content of the new society.”

rationale: it is never explained in the document why the progressive majority is the CCDS strategy and not some other approach to socialism.