Jobs Not War: Let’s Forge Ahead Together

Dear CCDSer

The progressive movement is at a crossroads.  As pressure from finance capital builds for President Obama to gut or restrict his recovery agenda, the progressive majority is trying to organize a fight back. Public expression of the anger and frustration of the people whose hopes for change seem to meet so many obstacles must be organized. Mass action and political action together can bring change.

We have just published a new booklet that analyzes the roots of the current crisis and offers a program of struggle for full employment as the progressive way out of our crisis. It title is “Its Time to Fight for Full Employment.” We need your help now to fund the printing and distribution of this important publication, sponsored by the CCDS Labor Committee. Click here to purchase it via PayPal

It’s especially timely as a tool to build for the Oct. 2 mass march on Washington called by the NAACP, La Raza, the AFL-CIO and many others, demanding Jobs, Justice and Peace.

The weight of the economic crisis has been shifted from the bankers to the people through growing unemployment and slashed budgets for human needs and infrastructure. After looting the treasury the neo-liberal politicians cry “deficit” and refuse to fund continued unemployment compensation, COBRA healthcare support, extension of Medicare physicians compensation, and emergency funds to prevent massive layoffs of teachers and firemen by local governments.

Now the “deficit fetishists” are sharpening their knives to slash social security and Medicare while continuing their global war policy.

More than ever the progressive movement needs a socialist left that can help educate about the class basis of political developments and the interconnection of class, race and gender. With this understanding, CCDS participates in the struggles of the progressive majority, works to build unity of progressive forces, and promotes advanced demands like the struggle for full employment.

A full employment and industrial policy that promotes green jobs is essential to ending the economic crisis. A movement for full employment will change the political dynamic in our country from a defense against the far right to an offense against the financial-military-oil oligarchy.

Please chip in $5 or more to help us pay for an initial printing of 1,000 copies of our new booklet. We will send you a copy right away.

And please sign up to sustain CCDS now to help us grow our organization and build the movement for change.

If you want to sustain an independent movement, then CCDS needs your help. We need to raise at least $2,000 per month in sustainers in order to fund our fantastic team of organizers, writers, and others who drive CCDS forward.
Political independence is a direct function of financial independence. That’s why the institutions on the left that have continued to meaningfully pursue a progressive agenda are those that are financially independent.

Left organizations like CCDS need regular, predictable sources of revenue that allow them to plan and grow, freeing them from the impossible choice of either operating on free labor or being in constant fund raising mode.  If we want left organizations, we have to consciously build and support them.  We need your help.

Can you help reach our goal by contributing $5, or more to fund CCDS? Click here to donate and to sustain CCDS.

http://www.cc-ds.org/donation.htmlTo order the booklets in bulk, send queries to carld717@gmail.com
We thank you for all you do to support CCDS. None of this would be possible without your help. Thank you for stepping up again to sustain our movement.
Thank you, again.
Pat Fry

Carl Davidson

Renee Carter

Carl Bloice

By Carl Davidson

Following this Convention, CCDS needs to hit the ground running with a clear program of action. We want clear and concise answers to the question often posed, ‘What is CCDS Doing?’ While it’s never been the case than the vast majority of our members have been inactive, it’s also been the case that we haven’t always focused our diverse activities in a way that made the organization more effective, more visible and thus better able to grow.


We need to better organize our activities on two fronts at once, the mass democratic and the socialist. The two are necessarily linked, but not the same.


ON THE MASS DEMOCRATIC FRONT:



--Peace and solidarity. We need to press for ‘Out Now’ as a demand expressing the urgency of ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and any other similar conflicts that might arise. If Obama doesn’t reverse course and is suckered in by the ‘Long War’ advocates, it will destroy him, his presidency and anything decent he wants to accomplish. The fight for peace and the fight for economic justice are linked in a way that has never been more clear. Obama can chart a path to recovery or he keep us in the quagmire of unjust wars. But he can’t do both, and we need to be the clear, insistent and determined voice delivering exactly that message. Educational work within the working class around the Gaza crisis and the Agent Orange crimes also stands out as a priority in solidarity work.



–Health Care for All. We need to stay engaged in the movement for universal health care, building support for HR 676 ‘Single-Payer’ Medicare for All. We need to work with all forces mobilizing for health care reform, even if we are not in agreement on the best solution. But we need to stick to our guns on single-payer, patiently explaining its rationality and practically to all concerned, continuing our ‘long march through the institutions’ of winning every union, every labor council, every local and county and state government, every CD, until we can amass the strength to encircle the opposition and win this sorely needed structural reform.



–Labor Solidarity. We need to join with the labor movement in fighting for Congress to pass EFCA and pressing the President to sign it into law. In addition to working in our unions, we need to build wider community alliances for EFCA. A strong labor movement makes for a stronger progressive majority beyond the unions. This legislation can vastly expand labor’s ranks relatively quickly once it wins, which is the key reason the fight around it has been so fierce.



–Jobs, Environment and Affirmative Action. We need to work with the ‘Green Jobs’ movement to make it successful, especially in every community with high concentrations of unemployed and underemployed youth. For many, green jobs are the way out of a life leading to prison incarceration or being pressed into the military. It’s a powerful tool for affirmative action against racism. It’s also part of a wider effort for a transition to green and clean energies that can move us away from an unsustainable energy system burning carbon or uranium.



–Jobs and Industrial Policy. We need to be engaged in the ‘Jobs Now!’ effort by the unions to use stimulus funds to rebuild and renew the manufacturing sector of our economy. We need an expansion of public infrastructure in health and schools, stressing that those new jobs go to women as well as men, with pay and job equity. We need to insist on Fair Trade with other countries, where agreements are for mutual benefit of the peoples concerned.



–Students and Youth. We need stimulus funds applied to broad educational opportunities for all, but especially our youth from minority and working-class communities. Our students need debt relief on student loans, and public funding for higher education all around. We need to work with the campaign of young people on these issues, and link them to wider alliances and resources.



–Elections. We need to work for election law reform, especially fusion and IRV. We also need to develop the electoral engagement capacity of all our base community organizations, and link them to independent left formations with an orientation toward uniting a progressive majority.



ON THE SOCIALIST FRONT:



–Study Groups. In a time of both demagogy and illusion about what socialism is and isn’t, and a renewed positive interest in large numbers of people, we need to expand the presence of our SEP, especially among the active organizers and fighters in the progressive movements. We need organized, face-to-face study groups in every city, which we can organize together with others in a left unity effort. We need to add to the online and electronic multimedia resources that can help popularize this educational work.



–Socialist Policy. We need to work with think tanks and organizations holding conferences and developing solidarity economy-like initiatives. Especially important are those that actively organize and promote radical structural reform, on the micro and macro levels, that are part of an Economic Democracy movement which also serves as bridge to a socialist future.



--Left Unity Project. We need to work with other socialist organizations, especially those sharing our approach and key values, to organize wider socialist unity projects, conferences and gatherings. Working together, we can have a wider public impact than working separately.



–Build the CCDS. Finally, we need to be far more assertive in organizing new CCDS chapters and recruiting new members to our existing ones. An old party-building slogan used by the Vietnamese throughout their struggle was ‘The harder the core, the broader the front.’ The work to develop a progressive majority will flounder without a strong left-progressive pole rooted to strong socialist organizations; likewise, any efforts to build a powerful socialist left without a positive engagement and presence in these wider movements will stagnate and die.

By Carl Davidson

SolidarityEconomy.net

May 1, 2009

The current discussion around socialism in left and progressive circles in the U.S. needs to be placed in a more substantive arena. This is an effort to do so. I take note in advance of the criticism that the following eleven working hypotheses are rather dry and formal. But in light of the faux ‘socialisms’ bandied about in the headlines and sound bytes of the mass media in the wake of the financial crisis, especially the absurd claim in the media of rightwing populism that the Obama administration is Marxist and socialist, I felt something a little more rigorous might be helpful. Obviously, criticism and commentary is invited.

1. Socialism’s fundamental building blocks are already present in US society. The means of production, for the most part, are fully developed and in fact are stagnating under the political domination of finance capital. The US labor force, again for the most part, is highly skilled at all levels of production, management, marketing, and finance. The kernels of socialist organization are also scattered across the landscape in cooperatives, socially organized human services, and centralized and widespread mass means of many-to-many communication and supply/demand data management. Many earlier attempts at socialism did not have these advantages.

2. Socialism is first of all a democratic political system where the interests and organizations of the working class and its allies have attained and hold the preponderance of political power and thus play the critical leading role in society. It is still a class society, but one in a protracted transition, over hundreds of years, to a future classless society where exploiting class privileges are abolished and classes and class distinctions generally wither away, both nationally and globally. So socialism will have classes for some time, including some capitalists, because it will be a mixed economy, with both public and private ownership, even as the balance shifts over time. Family farmers and small proprietors will both exist and flourish alongside cooperatives. Innovative ‘high road’ entrepreneurial privately-held firms will compete with publically-own firms, and encouraged to create new wealth within an environmentally regulated and progressively taxed system. Past efforts to build socialism have suffered from aggravated conflict between and among popular classes and lack of emphasis on building wide unity among the people.

3. Socialism at the base is a transitional economic system anchored in the social mode of production brought into being by capitalist development over several centuries. Its economic system is necessarily mixed, and makes use of markets, especially in goods and services, which are regulated, especially regarding the environment. But capital markets and wage-labor markets can be sharply restricted and even abolished in due time. Markets are a function of scarcity, and all economies of any scale in a time of scarcity have them, even if they are disguised as ‘black’ or ‘tiered’ markets. In addition to regulated markets, socialism will also feature planning, especially on the macro level of infrastructure development, in investment of public assets and funds, and other arenas where markets have failed. Planning will especially be required to face the challenges of uneven development and harsh inequalities on a global scale, as well as the challenge of moving from a carbon and uranium based energy system to one based on renewable green energy sources. The socialisms of the last century fell or stagnated due to failure to develop the proper interplay between plans and markets.

4. Socialism will be anchored in public and worker ownership of the main productive forces and natural resources. This can be achieved by various means: a) buying out major failing corporations at penny stock status, then leasing them back to the unions and having the workers in each firm—one worker, one vote—run them, b) workers directly taking ownership and control over failed and abandoned factories, c) eminent domain seizures of resources and factories, with compensation, otherwise required for the public good, and d) public funding for startups of worker-owned cooperative businesses. Socialism will also require public ownership of most finance capital institutions, including bringing the Federal Reserve under the Treasury Department and federal ownership. Lease payments from publically owned firms will go into a public investment fund, which will in turn lend money to community and worker owned banks and credit unions. A stock market will still exist for remaining publically traded firms and investments abroad, but will be strictly controlled. A stock transfer tax will be implemented. Gambling in derivatives will be outlawed. Fair trade agreements with other countries will be on a bilateral basis for mutual benefit.

5. Socialism will require democracy in the workplace of public firms and encourage it in all places of work. Workers have the right to independent unions to protect their social and daily interests, in addition to their rights as worker-owners in the governance of their firms. In addition to direct democracy at the plant level, the organizations of the working class also participate in the wider public planning process and thus democratically shape the direction of ongoing development on the macro level as well. Under socialism the government will also serve as the employer-of-last-resort. Minimum living-wage jobs will be provided for all who want to work. Socialism is committed to genuine full employment. Every citizen will have a genuine right to work.

6. Socialism will largely be gained by the working class and it allies winning the battle for democracy in politics and civil society at large, especially taking down the structures and backward laws of class, gender and racial privilege. Women have equal rights with men, and minority nationalities have equal rights with the majority. It also defends equal rights and self-determination among all nations across the globe; no nation can itself be fully free when it oppresses another. Socialism will encourage public citizenship and mass participation at every level, with open information systems, public education and transparency in its procedures. It will need a true multiparty system, with fusion voting, proportional representation and instant runoff. Given the size and diversity of our country, it is highly unlikely that any single party could adequately represent all popular interests; working class and progressive organizations will need to form common fronts. All trends are guaranteed the right to speak, organize, petition and stand for election. With public financing as an option, socialism can restrict the role of wealth in elections, moving away from a system, in effect, of “one dollar, one vote” and toward a system more reflective of “one person, one vote.” These are the structural measures that can allow the majority of the people, especially the working class and its allies, to secure the political leadership of government and instruments of the state by democratic means, unless these are sabotaged by reaction. Some socialisms of the past used only limited formal democracy or simply used administrative means to implement goals, with the failure of both the goals and the overall projects. Americans are not likely to be interested in systems with elections where only one party runs and no one can lose.

7. Socialism will be a state power, specifically a democratic political order with a representative government. But the government and state components of the current order, corrupted with the thousand threads connecting it to old ruling class, will have to be broken up and replaced with new ones that are transparent, honest and serve the majority of the people. The US Constitution and Bill of Rights can still be the initial basic organizing principle for a socialist government and state. The democratic rights it has gained over the years will be protected and enhanced. Government will also be needed to organize and finance the social development benefitting the people and the environment already mentioned; but the state power behind the law will be required to compel the honest use of resources and to protect people from criminal elements, individual and organized. Forces who try to overturn and reverse the new socialist government illegally and in violation of the Constitution will not be able to do so; they will be broken up and brought to justice. Our society will need a state power for some time to come, even as its form changes. Still, government power has limits; under socialism sovereignty resides in the people themselves, and the powers of any government are necessarily restricted and subordinate to the universal and natural rights of all humankind. Attempts to ignore or reject these principles have severely harmed socialist governments and movements in the past.

8. Socialism will be a society in harmony with the natural environment, understanding that all economies are subsets of the eco-system and ignore it at their peril. In its economics, there are no such things as “externalities” to be pushed off downstream or to future generations. The nature of pending planetary disasters necessitates a high level of planning. We need to redesign communities, promote healthier foods, and rebuild sustainable agriculture—all on a global scale with high design, but on a human scale with mass participation of communities in diverse localities. Socialism will treasure and preserve the diversity of nature’s bounty and end the practice of genetic modification to control the human food supply. We need growth, but intelligent growth in quality and wider knowledge with a lighter environmental footprint. A socialism that simply reproduces the wasteful expansion of an earlier capitalism creates more problems than it solves.

9. Socialism values equality, and will be a society of far greater equality of opportunity, and far less economic inequality. In addition to equal rights before the law, all citizens and residents will have equitable access to a “universal toolbox” of paid-up free public education for all who want to learn, for as far as they want and are able to go; universal public pre-school care; a minimum income, as a social wage, for all who create value, whether in a workplace or otherwise; our notions of socially useful work, activity that creates value, has to be expanded beyond market definitions. Parents raising children, students learning skills, elders educating and passing traditions to younger generations–all these create value that society can in turn reward. Universal single-payer health care with retirement benefits at the level of a living wage is critical to start. Since everyone has access to employment, the existing welfare system can be abolished; individuals will be free to choose the career path and level of income targets they desire, or not. There are no handouts for those able to work, but there are also no irrational barriers to achievement.

10. Socialism is a society where religion can be freely practiced, or not, and no religion is given any special advantages over any other. Religious freedom remains a fundamental tenant of socialism, but naturally neither its practitioners nor anyone else can deny anyone the benefits and protection of civil and criminal law, especially to women and children.

11. Socialism will require an institution of armed forces. Their mission will be to defend the people and secure their interests against any enemies and help in times of natural disasters. It will not be their task to expand markets abroad and defend the property abroad of the exploiting classes. Soldiers will be allowed to organize and petition for the redress of grievances. Armed forces also include local police, under community control, as well as a greatly reduced prison system, based on the principle of restorative justice, and mainly for the protection of society from individuals inflicted with violent pathologies and criminal practices. Non-violent conflict resolution and community-based rehabilitation will be encouraged, but the need for some coercive means will remain for some time.

[Carl Davidson is webmaster for SolidarityEconomy.net, a national committee member of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, and a coordinating committee member of the US Solidarity Economy Network. Together with Jerry Harris, he is author of 'Cyber-Radicalism: A New Left for a Global Age, available at http://stores.lulu.com/changemaker If you like this article, go to 'Keep On Keepin' On at http://carldavidson.blogspot.com and make use of the PayPal button. Email him at carld717@gmail.com ]

I was sick of hearing even progressives say that we are going to have to stop using the term ‘capitalist economy’ as if we knew what a functioning non-capitalist economy would look like (these words from the well-known philosopher and public intellectual Richard Rorty, writing in the widely read liberal magazine.) In 1998 I was approached by a publisher to do a more popular version of ‘Against Capitalism,’ less oriented to professional philosophers and economists, more accessible to students, labor organizers and other sympathetic non-academics. I agreed, and began what I thought would be quick and easy project.



The project was not so quick and easy. The result, ‘After Capitalism,’ did not appear until 2002. It was longer in coming than I had anticipated. I had to do more than update statistics and alter the style. For the world had changed significantly since the early 1990s, and, as a result (I came to realize) my own focus had changed.



My thinking had become (and remains) more praxis-oriented than it had been earlier. Moreover, this change of focus suggested certain supplements to my original model, which I set out in the Postscript to my article, which is also included in this volume. What I will say to you today draws heavily on that supplement to the original article.



The World Has Changed



History has not moved along the path foretold a decade and a half ago by so many confident prognosticators. In particular:



* The socialist experiments have not all collapsed, as was so widely expected.



* The neoliberal experiments have failed almost everywhere.



* A new resistance movement has come into being.



In the early 1990s it seemed to most people that socialism was over, at least for the foreseeable future. The socialist experiment in the Soviet Union had failed. The various attempts that had been undertaken in Eastern Europe to modify, humanize, and make more efficient the basic Soviet model had been brought to a halt.



It seemed only a matter of time, the interval presumed to be short, before Cuba, China, Vietnam and North Korea would abandon their socialist pretenses and join the capitalist club.



But they didn’t.



Cuba, despite a further tightening of the embargo, went through a very difficult ‘special period,’ but has seen its economy rebound significantly. Vietnam and especially China have done more than survive. Vietnam has seen its economy grow rapidly, despite the million or so citizens killed by the Americans and their (our) puppet-regimes and the millions of gallons of poison sprayed on their countryside. China has succeeded over the last quarter century in lifting more people out of poverty than any country has ever done in human history, and, at the same time, has established itself as one of the world’s major economic powers.



It should be noted that all three of these countries, which still identify themselves as socialist, have introduced market mechanisms into their economies, which, as we shall see shortly, the theory underlying Economic Democracy recommends. By way of contrast, the North Korean economy remains relentlessly non-market, and continues to deteriorate as the theory underlying Economic Democracy predicts.



It is not the economies of the countries that continue to profess socialism that have collapsed but the economies that most fervently embraced the new capitalist orthodoxy. More precisely, the greatest economic disasters of recent years have been those on the extremes; on the one hand, North Korea, which refuses all concessions to the market, and on the other hand, those ex-socialist countries that embraced capitalism most avidly.



Among the latter, the Soviet Union stands out, having experienced the worst economic decline in time of peace of any country in modern history. Clearly, the euphoria that once informed the neoliberal project has evaporated, as those countries that followed the U.S. Treasury/IMF/World Bank prescriptions have all experienced either sharp decline or, at best, minimal growth: not only the countries that once comprised the Soviet Union, but also Mexico, Haiti, most of Eastern Europe, most of Central and South America, most of Southeast Asia, almost all of sub-Sahara Africa–the list goes on and on. Not many would have predicted a dozen years ago that nations would still be calling themselves socialist today, nor that neoliberalism would have so quickly discredited itself. Fewer still would have predicted the breadth or composition of the opposition that has emerged.



At the time I was writing ‘A Worthy Socialism,’there was no sign of resistance to resurgent global capitalism. Then, in 1994, came the Zapatista uprising in Chiapas, and five years later, in Seattle, five days that shook the world. A global resistance movement has come into being.



This movement is quite different from the Marxist guerilla movements that had existed almost everywhere in the Third World during the four decades following World War II and from the Communist and Socialist political parties that were prominent in most of Europe during that period. It comprises a strange mix: students, veteran activists, trade unionists, feminists, environmentalists, anarchists, anti-militarists and more people unified by no common ideology, but somehow committed to a common project, a counterproject to that of globalizing capitalism.



The coming to power in Latin America recently of governments elected by majorities who are sick of the old formulae has added yet another dimension to this global movement. Needless to say, Venezuela shines bright in this respect.



Theory with a Practical Intent



Because of this counterproject, my work in recent years has become more praxis-oriented than it was before. My orientation has remained theoretical, but the focus is now theory-with-a-practical-intent rather than theory-with-a-theoretical-intent. The point is no longer to refute a theoretical objection (that there cannot exist a viable socialism) but to offer a model that can play a role in clarifying praxis. The movement for global justice is powerful in its critique of the existing order, and it is visionary in its ideals, which go well beyond the rather economistic vision of earlier struggles for socialism. While still concerned with alleviating poverty and ending economic insecurity, the new vision also embraces gender and racial equality, the preservation of indigenous cultures, the preservation of our planet from the ravages of global capitalism and more.



But this movement lacks a clear conception of an alternative economic structure. There remains a large gap between the articulated vision and a specification of structural reforms that would realize this vision. Currently there is much discussion within the movement about both globalization and localism. (Think globally, act locally is a popular slogan.) Much is being written about reforming international institutions and also about preserving and developing local economies. Curiously, there is far less discussion about changing radically the economic structure of the nation-state. In some circles the project seems pointless, since (it is said) the nation-state is, or should become, obsolete.



This view is mistaken. For if we think seriously about alternatives to capitalism, which we must, if we are to get at a central cause of our global malaise, we see that the most important structural reforms apply in the first instance to the internal constitution of nation state. Marx was right about this. Although anti-capitalist activists must never lose sight of the international dimensions of the struggle, we must ‘win the battle for democracy’ in our own countries, not to dissolve national boundaries, but to transform our states into non-rapacious entities that can address the real problems of our own citizens while at the same time giving aid and comfort to those involved in similar struggles all over the planet.



The model set out in ‘A Worthy Socialism’ is a model for a national economy. I now see the point of the model is three-fold.



First of all, it can serve as a non-utopian ideal that can be rationally defended, to ordinary people and activists, but also to economists, political scientists, philosophers and other serious scholars. The global justice movement must be able to defend itself against the charge of economic naivety. It is important to undermine the hegemony of conventional wisdom.



Secondly, the model suggests concrete reforms for which the movement can struggle now, reforms that are rooted in the present but point beyond the present. Just as Marx and Engels, in ‘The Manifesto,’ advocated concrete reforms that were far from revolutionary, so should we. There are reforms that could be put on the political agenda now that do not challenge the rule of capital directly, yet put in place institutions that could become central to a post-capitalist society. (Marx and Engels noted, as should we, that any reform list would have to be tailored to the specifics of the country in question.)



Thirdly, the model and the arguments that can be marshaled on its behalf help us make sense of the myriad economic ‘experiments’ of the twentieth century. We can see why the early socialist experiments failed. We can see the limits of social democratic reform. We can see why the introduction of capitalist elements into socialist economic structures need not be read as retrogression. We can see how we, as a species, might be learning from our past mistakes, and that there are grounds for optimism regarding our collective future.



Marx’s Democratic Critique of Capitalism and Its Implications for Socialism



The model which I advocate owes much to Marx. Of course, as is well known, Marx’s powerful and compelling critique of capitalism provided no explicit model for a viable alternative to capitalism, no “recipes for cookshops of the future,” in his disdainful phrase. I don’t fault Marx for this omission. He was a “scientific” socialist. Although there were sufficient data available to him to ground his critique of capitalism, there was little upon which to draw regarding alternative economic institutions. No “experiments” had been performed.



We no longer have that excuse. Although Marx offers us no blueprint for a socialist economy, much of his critique of capitalism focuses on the workplace, his early writings, but also ‘Capital,’ both in its theoretical solution to the “riddle of capital” (How is profit possible when equals always exchange for equals in the market?) and in its detailed description of the actual conditions of work in mid-nineteenth century Britain. But what might be the solution to “alienated labor”? The product of labor, the embodiment of a worker’s energy and skill, does not belong to her. Nor does she have any control over what is produced, how it is produced, or her conditions of work. All of those decisions reside with he who owns the means of production, the capitalist. If the product of labor is alien to me, confronts me as an alien power, to whom then does it belong?



If my own activity does not belong to me, if it is an alien and forced activity, to whom then does it belong? To a being other than myself. Who is this being? The alien being who owns labor and the product of labor, whom labor serves and whom the product of labor satisfies can only be man himself… a man who is other than the worker. So what might be the solution to “alienated labor”?



The answer would seem to be obvious, although not stated explicitly by Marx. The workplace should be democratized! Not that democratization solves all the problems of alienation. Democratic decision-making is no panacea. Bad decisions are sometime made. The losers in democratic debate can become embittered, especially if they consistently lose. But still, democratizing the workplace responds directly to Marx’s critique. The product now belongs to those who produce it. They have control over the conditions of its production. Scope for collective action emerges that is far wider than that which exists under capitalism.



Another part of Marx’s critique has a different emphasis. At the theoretical heart of Capital is Marx’s solution to the just-mentioned riddle. Profit is possible, Marx argues, because workers are required to work more than the labor-time necessary for their own reproduction. This surplus labor produces surplus value, the source of capitalist profit. It might be supposed that the resolution of this “injustice” would be for workers to work only long enough to give back to society the equivalent of what they consume, i.e. the labor-time embodied in the objects they purchase with their wages. But this tempting solution cannot be correct, for an economy that produced no surplus would be a stagnant economy, with no means available for enhancing the quality of life of its citizens.



There would be no surplus for research and development, no surplus to be directed to those parts of the economy that may have lagged behind the general level development, no surplus to be used for “free” goods, such as education, health care, state pensions. Indeed, Marx makes it very clear that a socialist society would still need to generate a social surplus.



It is not true, Marx argues, that every worker in a communist society should receive the full proceeds of his labor. From the “collective proceeds of labor” must be deducted funds for the expansion of production, insurance funds against accidents and natural disturbances, funds to cover the general costs of administration not pertaining directly to production, as well as “that which pertains to the general satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc.” a part which “grows considerably in comparison with present day society, and grows in proportion as the new society develops.” In short, Marx’s critique pertains not to the fact that surplus value is produced, but to the fact that the producers, collectively, do not have control over the disposition of that surplus.



Thus we see that Marx’s critique of capitalism is in essence a democratic critique. Workers have no democratic control over their conditions of work. Society lacks democratic control over the social surplus, the disposition of which determines the general developmental trajectory of society. There is something else about Marx’s critique of capitalism that should be noticed, something Marx himself seems not to have realized. Marx’s critique is not really a critique of the market.



Generations of Marxists have assumed that it is, but this is wrong. It is true that Capital begins with “the commodity,” and then traces, in rather abstract, Hegelian fashion, the development of the market, from barter (C–C), to money-mediated exchange (C–M–C), to money-initiated exchange: money being advanced for the purpose of making more money (M–C–M). But that brings Marx to his paradox: how can money produce more money, when equals are being exchanged for equals? How can M become M’, where M’ M? His solution, as we know, is to focus on a very special commodity: labor-power, the capacity a worker has to work, which is all she has to bring to market.



But notice: something has changed. We are no longer talking about the standard commodity market (the market for goods and services) but a different sort of market, a labor market. Indeed, if we follow the logic of Capital, we see that in the initial phase of the development of the market, from barter (C-C) to money-mediated exchange (C-M-C), there is no exploitation, at least not in Marx’s sense. Marxian exploitation enters with the commodification of labor.



Moreover, as this market develops, it gives rise to yet a third market: a market controlling the disposition of surplus value, i.e. a capital market. Thus we see that “the market” in a capitalist society is in not unitary. It is a triple market: a market for goods and services, a labor market and a capital market. Marx’s critique is in fact not a critique of the market per se, but of the labor and capital markets. Suddenly theoretical space opens up, in the heart of Marx’s critique of capitalism, for market socialism.



Economic Democracy: the Model



From these considerations a theoretical model comes into view, a socialist alternative to capitalism quite different from the Soviet model. I call it “Economic Democracy.” It consists of three defining institutions: 1. A market for goods and services, which is essentially the same as under capitalism. 2. Workplace democracy, which replaces the capitalist institution of wage labor. 3. Democratic control of investment, which replaces the capital markets of capitalism.



Let me elaborate briefly on each of these key institutions.



1. I’ve long been convinced that markets are a necessary component of a viable socialism. Central planning does not work for a sophisticated economy. The knowledge and information problems are too great. This is the great negative lesson to be drawn from the socialist experiments of the past century. But these markets should be largely confined to goods and services. They should not embrace labor or capital. And they should be regulated. Not all goods and services should be commodified, certainly not health, education, or water. There are valuable lessons to learned from the best examples of European social democracy as to what goods and services can be effectively provided by the state, and how markets might be effectively regulated.



2. It is now well established that productive enterprises can be run democratically with little or no loss of efficiency, often with a gain in efficiency, and almost always with considerable gain in employment security. This is the positive lesson of a great many recent experiments in alternative forms of workplace organization. Of course structure and culture are important here. Not all forms of workplace democracy work equally well. Good management is important. Managers need a certain degree of autonomy to manage effectively. But this management should be answerable, ultimately, to its workforce, one-worker, one-vote.



3. Some sort of democratic control of investment is essential if an economy is to develop rationally. This is the great negative lesson to be drawn from the failure of neoliberalism. But control of investment is exceedingly difficult if the investment funds themselves are privately generated. The solution to this problem is conceptually simple. Don’t rely on private investment. Generate your investment funds publicly, via taxation. In my article and in my subsequent work, I advocate a capital assets tax for this purpose. These funds should be allocated to public banks, which channel them back into the economy, utilizing both economic and social criteria, including, importantly, employment creation.



Regarding these three basic institutions, it is important to keep in mind that the last century was thick with economic experimentation, not only the large-scale experiments with various forms of capitalism and socialism, but also small-scale experiments in individual enterprises. I am convinced that the empirical data now available to us strongly support the claim that an economy structured along the lines suggested by the model presented above would work better than capitalism.



We know a lot now about regulating a market economy. (We know that laissez-faire doesn’t work.) There is a vast literature now extant on worker-owned or worker-managed enterprises. We know what problems are likely to arise, and how these can be addressed. There have been many attempts at macro-economic planning, often involving the allocation of investment resources. We know that intelligent investment planning is possible. In my view we can now assert with a high degree of scientific confidence that an economy structured as an Economic Democracy (the theoretical structures suitably modified to take into account certain practical contingencies) will be at least as efficient as capitalism, more rational in its development, and more democratic. It will also be less susceptible to the glaring defects of capitalism: excessive inequality, unemployment, poverty in the midst of plenty, overwork, and environmental degradation.



In the expanded model of Economic Democracy, which builds on the basic model presented in my original article, I’ve added several supplemental institutions. Let me discuss two that might have special relevance to the situation here.



Supplement I: Government as Employer-of-Last-Resort



The basic model of Economic Democracy, as set out in ‘A Worthy Socialism’, features three institutions: workplace democracy, a market for goods and services, and social control of investment. In the article I refer to ‘Keynesian inefficiency’, i.e. unemployment. I point out that unlike capitalism, Economic Democracy does not require unemployment. Under capitalism, unemployment serves as the fundamental disciplinary mechanism at the enterprise level, whereas under Economic Democracy the work incentives are positive, since one’s income is tied directly to the economic performance of the enterprise. I assert that public control of investment should make unemployment less of a problem.



I now think that this mechanism is insufficient. Structural unemployment is on the rise almost everywhere in the world. The problem must be confronted directly. It is true that Economic Democracy does not depend on unemployment for its health, but it is equally true that there is no automatic tendency toward full employment in a worker-self-managed economy, no more than under capitalism. Unless there is state intervention, there will be significant unemployment. This problem can be addressed in part, as I indicate in ‘A Worthy Socialism’, by making job creation a priority on par with profitability in the allocation of investment funds. That is to say, when democratic firms approach banks for investment grants, priority is given to those whose business plans look economically sound and include job creation. While this may make the problem of unemployment less severe than under capitalism (since capitalist investment gives no weight to job creation per se), I am no longer convinced that this solution is sufficient.



I now propose a fourth institution: the government as employer-of-last-resort. The government should stand ready to give a relatively low-paying job to any able-bodied person who wants to work but cannot find any other satisfactory employment. This is not, on the face of it, a radical proposal. It has been championed on occasion by social democratic parties, although not, to my knowledge, ever implemented.



For good reason. Such a program cannot work under capitalism. Workers become emboldened in a full-employment economy and make excessive demands on their employers, who must either take a cut in profits (not good for investor confidence) or pass on the costs to consumers (not good for them, or, more importantly, for finance capital, which stands in horror of inflation).



It can work under Economic Democracy. It should be part of the basic model. It should also be put on the short-run reform agenda.



Supplement II: An Entrepreneurial-Capitalist Sector



Although Marx’s critique of capitalism remains unsurpassed, there is an important economic issue that Marx neglected completely and ‘Worthy Socialism’ treated rather perfunctorily, namely the function of entrepreneurship in society. Marx’s analysis of capitalism focuses on the capitalist qua capitalist, i.e. as the provider of capital. This is a passive function, one which can readily be taken over by the state, as is the case in our basic model. There is no need to bribe those with excess funds at their disposal to save rather than consume, so as to make funds available for investment. It makes more sense to generate society’s investment fund directly, by taxing the capital assets of enterprises. That portion of the surplus that would have gone to private banks as interest payments or to stockholders as dividends goes directly to a fund earmarked for investment.



The capitalist middle-man is eliminated. Society no longer has to worry about private investors losing confidence in the economy, refusing to invest or sending their savings abroad in search of more lucrative opportunities, thus plunging the economy into recession. Society gains a degree of economic stability impossible under capitalism.







Petty Capitalists



Well and good, but there is another role played by some capitalists, a creative, entrepreneurial role. This role is assumed by a large number of individuals in a capitalist society, mostly by ‘petty capitalists’ who set up their own small businesses, but by some ‘grand capitalists’ as well, individuals who turn innovative ideas into major industries and reap a fortune in the process.



Clearly, any society that aspires to be technologically innovative and dynamic must provide incentives for this kind of initiative. It is quite clear from the experience of Soviet socialism that such incentives were sorely lacking in that model. From the beginning I have argued that Economic Democracy should allow for a ‘petty capitalist’ sector. Although workplace democracy should be the norm throughout society, it is unreasonable to demand that all businesses conform to this norm.



The petty capitalist, after all, works hard. He is anything but a parasite. It takes energy, initiative and intelligence to run a small business. These small businesses provide jobs for large numbers of people, and goods and services to even more. True, they are often exploitative of their workers (and themselves), but this problem would be greatly reduced if these businesses had to compete for workers with democratic firms, and if, in addition, the government stood by as an employer-of-last-resort.



Moreover, it is clear from experience that as difficult as it is to set up a small private business (witness the high failure rates), it is even more difficult to start up a new cooperative enterprise. In both cases initiative and business skills are necessary. But a ‘cooperative entrepreneur’ needs additional skills of a more interpersonal nature, since she cannot hire and fire at will. Indeed, she must subordinate her own will to the will of the collective. Perhaps someday these skills will be so widespread that society need not rely on the initiative of petty capitalists to keep its small business sector vibrant, but that time has not yet come.







Grand Capitalists



Petty capitalists may provide important services to society, but they do not provide much in the way to technological or organizational innovation. Here we must confront a more difficult question. Should Economic Democracy also allow for ‘grand capitalists’, individuals who run large, dynamic companies? Initially I didn’t think so. I was inclined to think that the entrepreneurial function of the large capitalists could be readily enough socialized. After all, most basic research in advanced capitalist societies is funded by the government. Most innovations come from government or university laboratories, and even those generated in the ‘private sector’ tend to come from scientists and engineers who are employees of these private companies, not from the owners. Moreover, the Mondragon cooperatives’ impressive record of keeping abreast technical innovations and even contributing their own demonstrates that it is possible to socialize the entrepreneurial function. (I treat this example in some detail in the article, a remarkable cooperative corporation that has been existence now for fifty years and is currently the largest corporation in the Basque region of Spain. I’ll say more about Mondragon later.)



I am no longer persuaded by this line of thought. For several reasons. First and foremost, I am no longer convinced that an entrepreneurial capitalist class need pose a serious threat to a society in which democratic workplaces are predominant. If the arguments set out in my article are correct, then democratic firms, when they have equal access to investment capital, need not fear competition from capitalist firms. On the contrary, since capitalist firms must compete with democratic firms for workers, they will be under considerable pressure to at least partially democratize their own operations, by instituting, for example, profit sharing and more participatory work relations. Moreover, there are rather simple legal mechanisms that can be put in place to keep this class in check.



The basic problem with capitalists under capitalism is not their active, entrepreneurial role (which relatively few capitalists actually play), but their passive role as suppliers of capital. Economic Democracy offers a transparent, rational substitute for this latter role, the capital assets tax. So the trick is to develop a mechanism that would prevent the active, entrepreneurial capitalist from become a passive, parasitic one.



But such a mechanism is easy enough to envisage: a simple, two-part law stipulating that a) an enterprise developed by an entrepreneurial capitalist can be sold at any time, but only to the state, for a sum equal to the value of the assets upon which the capital-assets tax is paid, and b) the enterprise must be sold when the owner retires or dies. (No bequeathing it to heirs.) When the state purchases an enterprise, it turns it over to the enterprise’s workers, to be run democratically. (In the case of a ‘joint venture’, among several entrepreneurial capitalists, the government acquires the shares of the retiring members until it becomes majority owner, at which time the remaining owners are bought out and the firm democratized.) That is to say, an entrepreneur can develop a business, make as much money from the enterprise as he is able, cash out at any time for any reason, but when he wants to cash out, he must sell the business to the state.



The capitalist-entrepreneur doe not retain any residual claim on the enterprise, no stock that will generate a permanent income flow, no control over the new management. Our capitalist-entrepreneur can spend the proceeds of his sale on luxury goods. He can give away as much as he wants. He can start a new business. What he cannot do is purchase stocks or bonds or other speculative financial instruments, at least not in our society, for no such instruments exist in our economy. Our investment capital is generated by the capital assets tax, not from private savings.



Such an arrangement provides amply incentives to entrepreneurial capitalists to engage their talents productively, while a) blocking their transition to passive capitalists (capitalists qua capitalists) and, at the same time, b) generating new worker-run enterprises. Using entrepreneurial capitalists to perform the latter function is quite reasonable, given the fact (noted above) that it is easier to democratize an existing enterprise than to create a democratic firm from scratch. Their being well-rewarded for this socially useful function need not pose a threat to an appropriately-structured socialist economy.







An Update on Economic Experiments



‘A Worthy Socialism’ makes reference to a number of then-current economic experiments. It is worth revisiting two of these, if only briefly. Yugoslavia, which has served as an inspiration for much early theorizing about worker-self-management, is no more. The country was coming apart as I wrote the article. The wreckage is now complete. A great and hopeful experiment has come to an end. I noted at the time that ‘the problem in Yugoslavia does not appear to be an excess of workplace democracy.’



That statement still stands. I know of no study of the Yugoslav disaster that claims worker-self-management to be a crucial factor. The theoretical perspective underlying Economic Democracy suggests that major fault lay with another feature of the Yugoslav model, its allocation of investments. It is quite clear that Yugoslavia did not exercise the control over investment correctly. First of all, Yugoslavia, like many other low- and middle-income countries, succumbed to the temptation to borrow large amounts of the low-interest petro-dollars that had accumulated in the late 1970s as a result of the OPEC price increases, so as to avoid confronting difficult domestic choices. It thus found itself, like so many other countries, in a financial crisis when the low interest rates turned sharply upward in the early 1980s. This policy mistake was greatly compounded by the central government’s allowing republics excessive autonomy in generating and allocating investment.



Predictably, the gap between the more developed and less developed regions widened, setting the stage for the regional and ethnic tensions that soon exploded. In contrast to the sad story of Yugoslavia, there is Mondragon, which I labelled in my article, an unequivocal success Fourteen years later, I would say the same.



The Mondragon Corporacion Cooperativa (MCC) is now Spain’s seventh largest corporation, with sales in excess of 10,000 million euros. It employs some 70,000 people (far more now than the 20,000 reported in my article), half of them in the Basque Country, 39% in other parts of Spain, 12% abroad. (Job creation remains a fundamental goal of the organization.) It now has a university with some 4000 students, a network of professional and vocational training centers, and ten research centers.



Among its many citations for excellence is its listing by Fortune Magazine in 2003 as one of the ten best companies in Europe to work for. MCC has been criticized for not implementing its cooperative model fully. Only half of the 218 companies and bodies that now comprise MCC are cooperatives; those outside the Basque region tend not to be. MCC argues that it has been difficult to set up the external enterprises as cooperatives, partly because many of these are joint ventures, partly because of the cooperative laws in other areas, but mainly because successful cooperatives require members who understand and are committed to cooperative culture, something which is impossible to obtain over a short period of time.



They point out, however, that in accordance with a General Assembly resolution passed in May 2003, efforts have been undertaken to enable non-member employees to participate in the ownership and management of their companies. Despite the fact that MCC is an island in a capitalist sea, and is thus shaped in part by the battering of those capitalist waves, it remains empirical evidence of the first order that large, technically-sophisticated, economically-efficient democratic enterprises are possible.



Concluding Summary



The basic model set out in my article has not been discredited by subsequent events. I remain convinced that Economic Democracy is indeed ‘a worthy socialism that would really work.’ It represents a viable alternative to capitalism that can orient our understanding of real-world economic experiments of past and present, and suggest concrete reform possibilities worth fighting for now. Economic Democracy is not a world where the lions lie down with the lambs, where all is peace and harmony, where all problems disappear. But it represents a qualitative advance beyond what we have now, beyond capitalism. It would be a healthier, happier place for almost everyone. Despite such setbacks as Yugoslavia and Weirton Steel, there is no reason to think that such a society, indeed, such a world, is impossible. It is more than merely possible. Working together, we can bring this new world into being.







[The Centro International Miranda is publishing a Venezuelan edition of Derecho a Decider: Propuestas para el socialismo del siglo XXI, featuring articles by Al Campbell, W. Paul Cockshott, Allin Cottrell, Robin Hahnel, David Laibman and David Schweickart. The authors have all been invited to Caracas to participate in the book launching. This article is the English version of Schweickart's upcoming presentation.]

Notes on an Orientation to the Obama Presidency

By Linda Burnham

The election of Obama, while enthusiastically embraced by most of the left, has also occasioned some disorientation and confusion.

Some have become so used to confronting the dismal electoral choice between the lesser of two evils that they couldn’t figure out how to relate to a political figure who held out the possibility of substantive change in a positive direction.

Others are so used to all-out, full-throated opposition to every administration that they wonder whether and how to alter their stance.

Still others sat out the election, for a variety of political and organizational reasons, and were taken by surprise at how wide and deep ran the current for change.

Now there’s an active conversation on the left about what can be expected of an Obama administration and what the orientation of the left should be towards it.

There are two conflicting views on this:

First, that Obama represents a substantial, principally positive political shift and that, while the left should criticize and resist policies that pull away from the interests of working people, its main orientation should be to actively engage with the political motion that’s underway.

Second, that Obama is, in essence, just another steward of capitalism, more attractive than most, but not an agent of fundamental change. He should be regarded with caution and is bound to disappoint. The basic orientation is to criticize every move the administration makes and to remain disengaged from mainstream politics.

It is possible to grant that Obama is a steward of capitalism while also maintaining that his election has opened up the potential for substantive reform in the interests of working people and that his election to office is a democratic win worthy of being fiercely defended.

Obama is clear – and we should be too – about what he was elected to do. The bottom line of his job description has become increasingly evident as the economic crisis deepens. Obama’s job is to salvage and stabilize the U.S. capitalist system and to perform whatever triage is necessary to restore the core institutions of finance and industry to profitability.

Obama’s second bottom line is also clear to him – and should also be to us: to salvage the reputation of the U.S. in the world; repair the international ties shredded by eight years of cowboy unilateralism; and adjust U.S. positioning on the world stage on the basis of a rational assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the changed and changing centers of global political, economic and military power – rather than on the basis of a simple-minded ideological commitment to unchallenged world dominance.

Obama has been on the job for only a month but has not wasted a moment in going after his double bottom line with gusto, panache and high intelligence. In point of fact, the capitalists of the world – or at least the U.S. branch – ought to be building altars to the man and lighting candles. They have chosen an uncommonly steady hand to pull their sizzling fat from the fire.

For some on the left this is the beginning and the end of the story. Having established conclusively that Obama’s fundamental task is to govern in the interests of capital, there’s no point in adjusting one’s stance, regardless of how skillful and popular he may be. For the anti-capitalist left that is grounded in Trotskyism, anarcho-horizontalism, or various forms of third-party-as-a-point-of-principleism, the only change worthy of the name is change that hits directly at the kneecaps of capitalism and cripples it decisively. All else is trifling with minor reforms or, even worse, capitulating to the power elite. From this point of view the stance towards Obama is self-evident: criticize relentlessly, disabuse others of their presidential infatuation, and denounce anything that remotely smacks of mainstream politics. Though this may seem an extreme and marginal point of view, it has a surprising degree of currency in many quarters.

The effective-steward-of-capitalism is only one part of the Obama story. Obama did what the center would not do and what a fragmented and debilitated left could not do. He broke the death grip of the reactionary right by inspiring and mobilizing millions as agents of change.

If Obama doesn’t manage to do even one more progressive thing over the course of the next four years, he has already opened up far more promising political terrain.

His campaign:

- Revealed the contours, composition and potential of a broad democratic coalition, demographically grounded in the (overlapping) constituencies of African-Americans, Latinos, Asians, youth across the racial groups, LGBT voters, unionized workers, urban professionals, and women of color and single white women, and in the sectors of organized labor, peace, civil rights, civil liberties, feminism, and environmentalism. Obama did not create this broadly democratic electoral coalition single-handedly or out of whole cloth, but he did move it from latency to potency and from dispirited, amorphous and unorganized to goal oriented, enthusiastic and organized;

- Busted up the Republican’s southern strategy, the foundation of their rule for most of the last forty years, and the Democrat’s ignominious concession to this legacy of slavery;

- Wrenched the Democratic Party out of the clammy grip of Clintonian centrism. (Although he himself often leads from the center, Obama’s center is a couple of notches to the left of the Clinton administration’s triangulation strategies); and

- Rescued political dialogue from its monopolization by hate-filled, xenophobic, ultra- nationalistic ideologues.

This is not change of the anti-capitalist variety, but certainly it is change of major consequence.

If the criterion is that the only change to be supported is that which strikes a decisive blow at capital, then the gap between where we are now and the realignment it would take to strike such a blow is completely and perpetually unbridgeable.

A better set of criteria, in light of the weakness of the left and the decades of hyper-conservatism we are only now exiting, is change that: creates substantially better conditions for working people; broadens the scope of democratic rights for sectors of the population whose rights have been abrogated; limits the prerogatives of capital; constrains runaway militarism and perpetual war; takes seriously the prospect of environmental collapse; and creates better conditions for struggle. This is the potential for change that Obama’s presidency has generated. This is the democratic opening. It is potential that will only be realized and maximized if the left and progressives step up and stay engaged.

These are also the criteria to keep in mind as the Obama presidency unfolds, rather than flipping out over every appointment and policy move he makes. Far better to de-link from the 24-hour news cycle that feeds on micro-maneuvers, stop making definitive judgments based on parsing the language of every pronouncement, and keep our eyes on the broader contours of change.

Besides the sectors of the anti-capitalist left that are stranded on Dogma Beach, there are those who see the tide running high but are still watching from the safety of the shore, hesitant to get in the water.

There are those who have been so long alienated from mainstream political processes and so disgusted with both political parties and all branches of government that their default response is instinctive distrust.

They view Obama’s presidency through the lens of anticipatory disillusionment. Their basic orientation is to analyze the administration’s every move with the goal of concluding, ‘See, we told you so. Obama’s gonna burn you. You’re gonna be disappointed.’ This is a mindset for jilted lovers, not political activists. Let us grant without argument that, from the vantage point of the left, there are many disappointments in store.

This is easy enough to predict based not only on Obama’s own politics but also on the alignment of forces and institutions in which he is embedded. And so what? We can survive disappointment over this or that policy or concession as long as we are making headway on the broader criteria above.

There are also those who stayed on the shoreline during the campaign because they are wedded to localism as a matter of preference, principle or habit. Others were lodged in organizational forms that, for structural, political or legal reasons, could not articulate with the motion and structures of the presidential campaign. These are complicated issues, bound up as they are with questions of resources and patterns of philanthropy.

But for those who missed interacting with the motion of millions against the right, against the white racial monopoly on the executive branch, and for substantive change, their absence should, at the very least, prompt a serious examination of political orientation and organizational form.

Finally, there are those who are struggling to negotiate the existential shoals of a commitment to anti-capitalist politics in a period when the system is manifestly dying but not nearly at death’s door (and there have been all too many chronicles of that death foretold); major alternative systems have only recently collapsed or capitulated; and the vision, values and program that might bind together an anti-capitalist left and win broad support are still frustratingly obscure. There’s no remedy for this dilemma except to live in the times we’re in meeting the challenges we’ve been given and making the most of every opportunity, rather than anticipating capital’s demise or pining for a past beyond recovery.

In this period, then, the left has three tasks.

Our first job is to defend the democratic opening. This is a job we share with broader progressive forces and with centrists. Obama won big and retains the favorable regard of a sizeable majority. And meanwhile the Republican Party is in glorious disarray. But in no way should we take this situation for granted. The new administration faces daunting challenges and outright crises on every front. And while the right is disoriented and weakened, it has not and will not leave the playing field. The principal players and institutions of the right are, at this very moment, plotting how to undermine the administration, challenge every initiative that moves in the direction of democracy, progress and peace, and regroup to seize control, once again, of the state apparatus.

Defense of the democratic opening means many things and ought to be the subject for discussion and strategizing on the left. But in practical terms, first and foremost, it means consolidating and extending the electoral alliance that made the opening possible. Any work that strengthens and broadens the voter engagement of the constituencies and sectors that secured Obama’s election is work that defends the democratic opening.

This kind of voter education, registration and mobilization work can be done in conjunction with an extremely broad range of local campaigns and initiatives. And anything that hastens the demise of the southern strategy, builds on the wins in Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia (along with the significant southwestern shifts in New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada), and challenges structural barriers to voter participation (e.g., felony disfranchisement, voter ID laws) is critical. All this is another way of saying that the electoral arena is an essential site of struggle for left and progressive forces in a way it has not been in at least 20 years. And this work, in which we have unity of purpose with the centrists, is vital to widening the Democratic majority in the 2010 congressional races, winning a filibuster-proof Senate majority, ensuring the successful re-election of Obama in 2012, and shaping both the parameters of viable Democratic candidates in 2016 and the outcome of that election.

Our second job is to contribute to building more united, effective, combative and influential progressive popular movements. This places the highest premium on strengthening and extending our ties with broader progressive forces, both inside and outside the Democratic Party, with an eye towards building long- term relationships and alliances among individuals, organizations and sectors. Anything that thickens and enriches the relationships among left and progressive actors in labor, religious institutions, policy think tanks, grassroots organizations, academia etc. is to be supported in the interests of strengthening the capacity of the left-progressive alliance to influence policy, to encourage and shore up whatever progressive inclinations might emerge from within the administration, and to resist administration tendencies to accommodation and capitulation to center-right forces.

At this early stage of Obama’s tenure it is already evident what some of the most vital left- progressive alliance building ought to focus on. In foreign policy, on war and militarism in general and on Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel/Palestine, Iran and non-proliferation in particular. In domestic policy, on health care and on solutions to the economic crisis that hold the financial sector accountable for reckless and predatory practices while addressing the particular vulnerabilities of working people, the poor, women, immigrants and communities of color. And, at the intersection of global and domestic policy, on oil dependency and global warming. All that enhances our capacity to constructively engage in debating and influencing policy on these issues is to the good. All that obstructs or distracts is highly problematic.

We’ve exited a period of collective psychic depression only to enter one of global economic depression. Each day, as the institutions of finance capital collapse, the corruption, greed and mismanagement of the nation’s economic system are further revealed. Broad sectors of the population have been shocked into a more skeptical and critical stance towards capitalism, and the need for some measure of structural change wins near- universal acceptance. The clash of rising expectations (encouraged by the hope and change themes of the Obama campaign) and a sinking economy will likely spark new levels and forms of popular resistance. In this political environment, alliance building will be complicated, messy and filled with political tensions and tactical differences. It is imperative nonetheless.

Our third job, and perhaps the trickiest, is to build the left. First let it be said that unless we are able to demonstrate a genuine commitment and growing capacity to take on the first two jobs, the third is a non-starter, and a prescription for political isolation. In other words, defending the democratic opening in conjunction with the center and building long-term relationships between the anti-capitalist left and broad progressive sectors in the context of the struggle over administration policy must be understood as critical tasks in their own right, not simply as arenas in which to advance an independent left line or to recruit new adherents to an anti- capitalist perspective. Realizing the progressive potential of the Obama win requires the most committed involvement with the twists and turns of politics on the most pressing issues on the administration’s agenda. This same engagement is critical to rebuilding the left, a long-term process that can be advanced significantly in the context of Obama’s presidency if, and only if, the left can skillfully manage the relationship and distinction between its own interests, dynamics and challenges and those of broader political forces.

Why is this the case? On the tell no lies front, the left is more isolated and fragmented than it has been in forty years. Truly fine work is being done by leftists in every region of the country and on every social issue. But the left qua left is barely breathing. This is not the place to go into the historical (world historical and U.S. historical), ideological, theoretical and organizational reasons why this is so. But let us, at the very least, frankly acknowledge that it is so. The current political alignment provides an opportunity to break out of isolation, marginalization and the habits of self- marginalization accumulated during the neo-conservative ascendancy. It provides the opportunity to initiate and/or strengthen substantive relationships with political actors in government, in the Democratic Party, and in independent sectors, as well as within the left itself – relationships to be built upon long after the Obama presidency has come to an end. It provides the opportunity to accumulate lessons about political actors, alignments and centers of power likewise relevant well beyond this administration. And it provides the opportunity for the immersion of the leaders, members and constituencies of left formations in a highly accelerated, real world poli-sci class.

In these circumstances, among our biggest challenges is how to attend to building the capacity of the left without succumbing to the siren songs of dogma, the old addictions of premature platform erection, or the self- limiting pleasures of building parties in miniature.

For the anti-capitalist left, this is a period of experimentation. There is no roadmap; there are no recipes. Those organizational forms and initiatives that enable us to synthesize experience, share lessons and develop broad orientations and approaches to seriously undertaking our first two tasks should be encouraged. Those that would entrap us in the hermetic enclosures of doctrinal belief should be avoided at all cost.

The Obama presidency is a rare confluence of individuals and events. There is no way to predict how things will unfold over the next 4-8 years. But this much we can foresee: if the opportunity at hand is mangled or missed, the takeaway for the left will be deepened isolation and fragmentation. If, on the other hand, the left engages with this political opening skillfully and creatively, it will emerge as a broader, more vibrant force on the U.S. political spectrum, better able to confront whatever the post-Obama world will bring.

_____________

Linda Burnham is co-founder of the Women of Color Resource Center (WCRC) and was its Executive Director for 18 years. Burnham has been working on racial justice and peace issues since the 1960s and on women- of-color issues since the early 1970s, and has published numerous articles on African-American women, African-American politics, and feminist theory in a wide range of periodicals and anthologies. In 2005 Burnham was nominated as one of 1000 Peace Women for the Nobel Peace Prize. Burnham is a frequent featured speaker on college campuses and to community groups, addressing issues of women’s rights, racial justice, human rights and peace. Burnham’s writing and organizing are part of a lifelong inquiry into the dynamic, often perilous intersections of race, class and gender.

[This was submitted by the Northern California CCDS for discussion, and then as a proposal for adoption.]

“The world is suffering from a fever due to climate change,
and the disease is the capitalist development model.”
Evo Morales, president of Bolivia, September 2007

Humanity’s Choice

Humanity today faces a stark choice: ecosocialism or barbarism.

We need no more proof of the barbarity of capitalism, the parasitical system that exploits humanity and nature alike. Its sole motor is the imperative toward profit and thus the need for constant growth. It wastefully creates unnecessary products, squandering the environment’s limited resources and returning to it only toxins and pollutants. Under capitalism, the only measure of success is how much more is sold every day, every week, every year — involving the creation of vast quantities of products that are directly harmful to both humans and nature, commodities that cannot be produced without spreading disease, destroying the forests that produce the oxygen we breathe, demolishing ecosystems, and treating our water, air and soil like sewers for the disposal of industrial waste.

Capitalism’s need for growth exists on every level, from the individual enterprise to the system as a whole. The insatiable hunger of corporations is facilitated by imperialist expansion in search of ever greater access to natural resources, cheap labor and new markets. Capitalism has always been ecologically destructive, but in our lifetimes these assaults on the earth have accelerated. Quantitative change is giving way to qualitative transformation, bringing the world to a tipping point, to the edge of disaster. A growing body of scientific research has identified many ways in which small temperature increases could trigger irreversible, runaway effects — such as rapid melting of the Greenland ice sheet or the release of methane buried in permafrost and beneath the ocean — that would make catastrophic climate change inevitable.

Left unchecked, global warming will have devastating effects on human, animal and plant life. Crop yields will drop drastically, leading to famine on a broad scale. Hundreds of millions of people will be displaced by droughts in some areas and by rising ocean levels in others. Chaotic, unpredictable weather will become the norm. Air, water and soil will be poisoned. Epidemics of malaria, cholera and even deadlier diseases will hit the poorest and most vulnerable members of every society.

The impact of the ecological crisis is felt most severely by those whose lives have already been ravaged by imperialism in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, and indigenous peoples everywhere are especially vulnerable. Environmental destruction and climate change constitute an act of aggression by the rich against the poor.

Ecological devastation, resulting from the insatiable need to increase profits, is not an accidental feature of capitalism: it is built into the system’s DNA and cannot be reformed away. Profit-oriented production only considers a short-term horizon in its investment decisions, and cannot take into account the long-term health and stability of the environment. Infinite economic expansion is incompatible with finite and fragile ecosystems, but the capitalist economic system cannot tolerate limits on growth; its constant need to expand will subvert any limits that might be imposed in the name of “sustainable development.” Thus the inherently unstable capitalist system cannot regulate its own activity, much less overcome the crises caused by its chaotic and parasitical growth, because to do so would require setting limits upon accumulation — an unacceptable option for a system predicated upon the rule: Grow or Die!

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.

At worst, human life may not survive.

Capitalist Strategies for Change

There is no lack of proposed strategies for contending with ecological ruin, including the crisis of global warming looming as a result of the reckless increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The great majority of these strategies share one common feature: they are devised by and on behalf of the dominant global system, capitalism.

It is no surprise that the dominant global system which is responsible for the ecological crisis also sets the terms of the debate about this crisis, for capital commands the means of production of knowledge, as much as that of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Accordingly, its politicians, bureaucrats, economists and professors send forth an endless stream of proposals, all variations on the theme that the world’s ecological damage can be repaired without disruption of market mechanisms and of the system of accumulation that commands the world economy.

But a person cannot serve two masters — the integrity of the earth and the profitability of capitalism. One must be abandoned, and history leaves little question about the allegiances of the vast majority of policy-makers. There is every reason, therefore, to radically doubt the capacity of established measures to check the slide to ecological catastrophe.

And indeed, beyond a cosmetic veneer, the reforms over the past thirty-five years have been a monstrous failure. Isolated improvements do of course occur, but they are inevitably overwhelmed and swept away by the ruthless expansion of the system and the chaotic character of its production.

One example demonstrates the failure: in the first four years of the 21st Century, global carbon emissions were nearly three times as great per annum as those of the decade of the 1990s, despite the appearance of the Kyoto Protocols in 1997.

Kyoto employs two devices: the “Cap and Trade” system of trading pollution credits to achieve certain reductions in emissions, and projects in the global south — the so-called “Clean Development Mechanisms” — to offset emissions in the highly industrialized nations. These instruments all rely upon market mechanisms, which means, first of all, that atmospheric carbon dioxide becomes a commodity under the control of the same interests that created global warming. Polluters are not compelled to reduce their carbon emissions, but allowed to use their power over money to control the carbon market for their own ends, which include the devastating exploration for yet more carbon-based fuels. Nor is there a limit to the amount of emission credits which can be issued by compliant governments.

Since verification and evaluation of results are impossible, the Kyoto regime is not only incapable of controlling emissions, it also provides ample opportunities for evasion and fraud of all kinds. As even the Wall Street Journal put it in March, 2007, emissions trading “would make money for some very large corporations, but don’t believe for a minute that this charade would do much about global warming.”

The Bali climate meetings in 2007 opened the way for even greater abuses in the period ahead. Bali avoided any mention of the goals for drastic carbon reduction put forth by the best climate science (90% by 2050); it abandoned the peoples of the global south to the mercy of capital by giving jurisdiction over the process to the World Bank; and made offsetting of carbon pollution even easier.

In order to affirm and sustain our human future, a revolutionary transformation is needed, where all particular struggles take part in a greater struggle against capital itself. This larger struggle cannot remain merely negative and anti-capitalist. It must announce and build a different kind of society, and this is ecosocialism.

The Ecosocialist  Alternative

The ecosocialist movement aims to stop and to reverse the disastrous process of global warming in particular and of capitalist ecocide in general, and to construct a radical and practical alternative to the capitalist system. Ecosocialism is grounded in a transformed economy founded on the non-monetary values of social justice and ecological balance. It 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.

Ecosocialism involves a revolutionary social transformation, which will imply the limitation of growth and the transformation of needs by a profound shift away from quantitative and toward qualitative economic criteria, an emphasis on use-value instead of exchange-value.

These aims require both democratic decision-making in the economic sphere, enabling society to collectively define its goals of investment and production, and the collectivization of the means of production.  Only collective decision-making and ownership of production can offer the longer-term perspective that is necessary for the balance and sustainability of our social and natural systems.

The rejection of productivism and the shift away from quantitative and toward qualitative economic criteria involve rethinking the nature and goals of production and economic activity in general. Essential creative, non-productive and reproductive human activities, such as householding, child-rearing, care, child and adult education, and the arts, will be key values in an ecosocialist economy.

Clean air and water and fertile soil, as well as universal access to chemical-free food and renewable, non-polluting energy sources, are basic human and natural rights defended by ecosocialism. Far from being “despotic,” collective policy-making on the local, regional,  national and international levels amounts to society’s exercise of communal freedom and responsibility. This freedom of decision constitutes a liberation from the alienating economic “laws” of the growth-oriented capitalist system.

To avoid global warming and other dangers threatening  human and ecological survival, entire sectors of industry and agriculture must be suppressed, reduced, or restructured and others must be developed, while providing full employment for all. Such a radical transformation is impossible without collective control of the means of production and democratic planning of production and exchange. Democratic decisions on investment and technological development must replace control by capitalist enterprises, investors and banks, in order to serve the long-term horizon of society’s and nature’s common good.

The most oppressed elements of human society, the poor and indigenous peoples, must take full part in the ecosocialist revolution, in order to revitalize ecologically sustainable traditions and give voice to those whom the capitalist system cannot hear. Because the peoples of the global south and the poor in general are the first victims of capitalist destruction, their struggles and demands will help define the contours of the ecologically and economically sustainable society in creation. Similarly, gender equality is integral to ecosocialism, and women’s movements have been among the most active and vocal opponents of capitalist oppression. Other potential agents of ecosocialist revolutionary change exist in all societies.

Such a process cannot begin without a revolutionary transformation of social and political structures based on the active support, by the majority of the population, of an ecosocialist program. The struggle of labour — workers, farmers, the landless and the unemployed — for social justice is inseparable from the struggle for environmental justice. Capitalism, socially and ecologically exploitative and polluting, is the enemy of nature and of labour alike.

Ecosocialism proposes radical transformations in:

1. the energy system, by replacing carbon-based fuels and biofuels with clean sources of power under community control: wind, geothermal, wave, and above all, solar power.

2. the transportation system, by drastically reducing the use of private trucks and cars, replacing them with free and efficient public transportation;

3. present patterns of production, consumption, and building, which are based on waste, inbuilt obsolescence, competition and pollution, by producing only sustainable and recyclable goods and developing green architecture;

4. food production and distribution, by defending local food sovereignty as far as this is possible, eliminating polluting industrial agribusinesses, creating sustainable agro-ecosystems and working actively to renew soil fertility.

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:

* drastic and enforceable reduction in the emission of greenhouse gases,
* development of clean energy sources,
* provision of an extensive free public transportation system,
* progressive replacement of trucks by trains,
* creation of pollution clean-up programs,
* elimination of nuclear energy, and war spending.

These and similar demands are at the heart of the agenda of the Global Justice movement and the World Social Forums, which have promoted, since Seattle in 1999, the convergence of social and environmental movements in a common struggle against the capitalist system.

Environmental devastation will not be stopped in conference rooms and treaty negotiations: only mass action can make a difference. Urban and rural workers, peoples of the global south and indigenous peoples everywhere are at the forefront of this struggle against environmental and social injustice, fighting exploitative and polluting multinationals, poisonous and disenfranchising agribusinesses, invasive genetically modified seeds, biofuels that only aggravate the current food crisis. We must further these social-environmental movements and build solidarity between anticapitalist ecological mobilizations in the North and the South.

This Ecosocialist Declaration is a call to action. The entrenched ruling classes are powerful, yet the capitalist system reveals itself every day more financially and ideologically bankrupt, unable to overcome the economic, ecological, social, food and other crises it engenders. And the forces of radical opposition are alive and vital. On all levels, local, regional and international, we are fighting to create an alternative system based in social and ecological justice.

Eco-Socialism Conference

Oakland, California
January 10-11, 2009

Plenary Panel Remarks

By Carl Bloice

People look at me and roll their eyes when I offer the opinion that potential for international peace and cooperation would be greatly enhanced were it discovered that a large object was hurtling toward Earth and threatening great destruction to the planet. Science fiction would become science and possibly we would pull together to find a way to divert the menace from its path. As I said, people look at me like I’m a brother from another planet so I won’t go any further into it here. But still I think the scenario works as an analogy. So does the Economist magazine. Imagine my surprise when in its latest edition, it began its story on global warming with these words:

“Imagine that some huge rocky projectile, big enough to destroy most forms of life, was hurtling towards the earth, and it seemed that deep international co-operation offered the only hope of deflecting the lethal object. Presumably, the nations of the world would set aside all jealousies and ideological hangups, knowing that failure to act together meant doom for all.

“At least in theory, most of the world’s governments now accept that climate change, if left unchecked, could become the equivalent of a deadly asteroid. But to judge by the latest, tortuous moves in climate-change diplomacy-at a two-week gathering in western Poland, which ended on December 13th-there is little sign of any mind-concentrating effect.”

What I am about to argue here is that it is not just the logic of capitalist development in one or a number of countries that inhibits our ability to face the threats to our environment, but as well the operations of the global capitalist system. The challenge we face is how to arrive at a qualitatively new level of international coordination and cooperation.
The question is can such a global effort be put into effect by the existing national state entities and the transnational corporations that today shape economic development and commerce?

The planet – in the sense of place to human habitation – is under threat. It could be the result of some natural phenomenon like a giant meteor or the cooling of the sun but as nearly as those who know these things can figure out it’s the result of human activity and the danger is accelerating and there is a possibility that we can do something about it.

Reducing or eliminating our burning of fossil fuels as a source of heat, energy and materials is of the greatest importance in reducing the threat of climate change. And we must do everything we can to reduce the size of our carbon footprint. And that means doing all the things we now do or should do like eliminating plastic bags and bottles, increasing the use of fuel efficient vehicles and especially public mass transportation and equipping our communities and our industries with things like wind and solar energy. But we should be clear: all the green jobs in the world, all the Pirus driving and biodegradable diapers we can use will lessen but will not eliminate the danger we face. The problem is just too big.

Not only that, but global warming is only one of the radical affects our activity is having on the biosphere. There are other things like the pollution of oceans, the lackadaisical eliminating of hazardous our chemicals and deforestation and species destruction.

Peter Symon, the general secretary of the Communist Party of Australia until his death last month has written:

“Only a comprehensive emissions agreement negotiated by equals under the auspices of the United Nations and which is based on the interests and needs of all countries is going to be internationally acceptable. Any scheme based on the selfish needs of more powerful countries and the greed of corporations is not going to work.

“By their unrestrained exploitation and rape of the earth’s resources, the corporations are mainly responsible for the current spiraling consequences of climate change. Those who have caused the crisis cannot be expected to now reverse their behavior and put things right.”

“That is why ‘a new world outlook which accepts the interconnections between humanity and Nature and adopts objectives and principles of mutual benefit and the equality of all nations is the way to go,” Symon wrote in an article titled, Socialism, Internationalism and Climate Change.” Capitalism cannot but socialism can.”

The argument will, of course, arise that the ecological crisis cannot await the coming of socialism that the most stringent efforts must be made now under the present system.

Here I would like to refer to the views expressed last summer by the chair of the Japanese Communist Party Shii Kazuo.

“Look at the world in the 21st century in a broader perspective,” he said in an interview. “Under the present form of capitalism that puts profit making before anything else, poverty and economic inequalities are increasing at an alarming rate worldwide. The population facing hunger is increasing by 4 million each year. The rampage of speculative money is destroying people’s living conditions in many countries, in particular developing countries. The destruction of the global environment has emerged as a major critical issue.

“The profit-first principle of capitalism is causing many to wonder whether the world can survive along with it. In a broader perspective, the world is facing a major question whether capitalism is a viable economic system.”

He then went on, “On every one of the three issues that I mentioned, we must not lose time in making efforts to solve them even within the present framework of capitalism.”

Shii then spelled out several coordinate international reforms to be place on the agenda, including regulating speculative money flows, ending the speculation in food and targeted cuts in greenhouse gas emission. “This is also a matter that the world must address without delay even within the framework of capitalism,” he said.

“However, said Shii, “a question remains unsolved: can these two problems be solved through the efforts being made within the framework of capitalism? I would say they cannot be completely solved under capitalism, which is, after all, based on “profit-first” principle. This point will be made clearer in the course of attempting to implement structural changes. In that respect, the 21st century will be an era in which conditions for creating a new future society replacing capitalism will increasingly emerge.”

Those last two sentences, I believe are important. “… in the course of attempting to implement structural changes … the 21st century will be an era in which conditions for creating a new future society replacing capitalism will increasingly emerge.” It brought to mind a section of the Ecosocialist Manifesto written by Joel Kovel and Michael Lowery nearly a decade ago. It described itself as “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,” it went on. “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?”

The Manifesto went on to talk about the desirability of an “ecosocialist international.” I will leave that discussion for another time, only say that in my humble opinion any viable movement for systemic change must find its genesis in and be based up the needs, aspirations and struggles of working people and that the principle strategic task for the labor movement and the environmental movement is to find the nexus between the two. The way forward lies in the day-to-day linking of the human needs with what is necessary for sustainable development.

In my view the struggle for socialism is part and parcel of the struggle for ecologically sustainable development and vice versa.

My subject here is the prospect for the requisite level of international coordination and cooperation under the present circumstances.

Last year the Labor government of Australia issued what is called the Garnaut Climate Change Review, prepared under the direction of Professor Ross Garnaut. It examined the probable impact of climate change on the Australian economy, and recommended what are referred to as “medium to long-term policies and policy frameworks to improve the prospects for sustainable prosperity.”

“Without a framework for global cooperation, every country has an incentive to free-ride on the actions of others while making as little effort as possible in the meantime,” Garnaut explained. “Collectively, this can only lead to one outcome, namely, inaction and the inexorable accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. By the time the manifestation of climate change is sufficiently powerful to overcome the free-rider problem, most options will have been consigned to history.”

The report said, the developed countries “are yet to demonstrate their seriousness about such a commitment, and in any case cannot alone deliver such an outcome… Substantial reductions in emissions below business as usual in developing countries would also be required, and constraints in the order of what is required are not likely to be accepted over the next few years.” To achieve modest goals over the next 10 years “would be a major win, reflecting unprecedented levels of global cooperation. It might just be feasible.”

It might be possible the report said because “what might seem impossible from experience in other areas of international cooperation (such as international trade or arms control), has a chance. It is worth nurturing that chance.” That’s hardly a ringing declaration of faith in world collaboration.

The problem of coordinating the activities of the developed states with the developing ones is crucial. The stance of the some, like that of the Bush Administration, that any limits or restrictions on industrial activity in the countries that absorb the greater per capita share of the world’s resources must be matched by limits and restrictions by countries struggling to pull themselves out of grinding poverty will move nothing forward.

The Czech Republic has just assumed the presidency of the European Union. Last week the president of that country, Vaclav Klaus, wrote a commentary for the Financial Times. In it he spoke of “highly publicized (if not over-publicized) problems,” among them global warming.

“The global climate is basically not changing,” he wrote, “but global warming alarmists have succeeded in persuading politicians (and some ordinary people as well) that a doomsday is coming and on this false assumption they have tried to restrain our freedom and curtail our prosperity.

“We can also count on the fact that the Czech government will hopefully not be the champion of global warming alarmism. The Czechs feel that freedom and prosperity are much more endangered than the climate. The uniqueness of current levels of global warming is not a proven phenomenon. The explanation of factors that are contributing to global warming is not very clear and persuasive. Moves to mitigate climate change by fighting carbon dioxide emissions are useless and, what is most important, human beings have proved themselves to be sufficiently adaptable to an incrementally changing climate. We should turn our attention to other, really daunting issues.”

Klaus’ approach to climate change mirrors his view of the current international economic crisis. It is not systemic, but a “just” price we have to pay for immodest and over-confident politicians playing with the market.” “The Czech government will – hopefully – not push the world and Europe into more regulation, nationalization, de-liberalization and protectionism and “(A) big increase in financial regulation, as is being proposed so often these days, will only prolong the recession.

Klaus went on, “It would be much more helpful…to have a great reduction in all kinds of restrictions on private initiatives introduced in the last half a century during the era of the brave new world of the ‘social and ecological market economy”… The best thing to do now would be temporarily to weaken, if not repeal, various labor, environmental, social, health and other ‘standards’, because they block rational human activity more than anything else.”

Would it not be fair at this point to ask what the future holds for international coordination and cooperation hold when the person heading the largest trading bloc on the planet is an ecological knownothing and an unreconstructed economic neoliberal?

It would be simple to say that Klaus’ views are merely those of an individual leader. But that is hardly the case. The now globalized capitalist system still operates through existing national state entities and the transnational corporations. The conflicts between and amongst them are sharpening everyday. These antagonisms are at the roots of the past and present military conflicts of our era. As long as they remain the potential for international action to save the ecosystem remains tenuous at best.

Meanwhile, we must do more than talk about it. We must act. We must do what we can where we are. A tremendous battle is shaping up in the country over our future course. We must no stand aside from it. There was a section of President-elect Barack Obama’s university address the other day that caught my attention. Outlining the economic dangers that lie ahead and the necessity of government action, he said, “To finally spark the creation of a clean energy economy, we will double the production of alternative energy in the next three years. We will modernize more than 75 percent of federal buildings and improve the energy efficiency of two million American homes, saving consumers and taxpayers billions on our energy bills. In the process, we will put Americans to work in new jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced – jobs building solar panels and wind turbines; constructing fuel-efficient cars and buildings; and developing the new energy technologies that will lead to even more jobs, more savings, and a cleaner, safer planet in the bargain.”

Well, not exactly. To transform and sustain the biosphere we need much more, on a vastly bigger and universal scale. Still, it’s a good place to start. Doing nothing is no answer.

The message, I believe, we should carry forward as we struggle for what gains can be made today, is that capitalism as a world system is the major impediment to the kind of sound and sustainable social and economic policies we need and that socialism is a surer environment in which to preserve the ecosystem that sustains humanity. It must always be on the agenda in the 21st Century.

What Next for Progressives for Obama?

An Organizing Proposal

for a Left-Progressive

National Network and Clearinghouse

by Carl Davidson and Bill Fletcher, Jr.

How can the people brought together by the `Progressives for Obama’ project make a transition into a broader and ongoing post-election nationwide network? How can that network continue to serve as a left- progressive pole within the broader alliance of Obama activists and voters, while contributing to the organization of the instruments for popular political power? What follows is an outline of the organizing tasks and components of such an effort, with an invitation to wider discussion among our community of supporters and activists.



Starting Points



The most important node on the new network is the base community. This is a grassroots group of left- progressive voter-activists situated where people live, work or go to school.

1. Where people live can be a neighborhood, a township, precinct, church parish, temple or mosque, a ward, town or city, state legislative districts or congressional districts. It can be any combination or variation of these, but the main point is that they have a set of elected officials or governmental body as a target.



2. Where people work is important because of the potential power of organized labor, whether their workplace is currently organized or not. That power is multiplied by the direct engagement of the rank-and- file in base organizations, committees and such.



3. Where people go to school is important because of the powerful role of youth as a critical force, often serving to awaken the wider society to injustices, local and global. School is the most common place they come together, but faith, culture and sports venues are also important here.



Left-progressive defines the political orientation, essentially broad agreement with the principles of the initial call to `Progressives for Obama’, groups like the Aurora Project, Progressive Democrats of America and others. The main themes to focus on: Healthcare not Warfare via HR676, Green Jobs Not War Jobs via recession-busting infrastructure spending, Alternative Energy Investments dealing with climate change, College for All who want to learn for the work and study required by the 21st Century, wider democracy through EFCA for unions and other anti-discrimination measures, and stopping the wars now and cutting defense to help pay for it



The voter-activists we seek are the kind of people who hold these politics and either already belong to mass democratic organizations working on the above, or they want to join them. They can be ad-hoc single issue groups, 501C4 nonprofit groups, faith-based and community based groups, union locals or even clubs of political parties or the campaign organizations of local candidates and elected officials. But it’s best if they have individual members, and see themselves growing by getting more of them. During election cycles, they are people who vote and work in campaigns. Between election cycles, however, they are also active in a variety of other mass campaigns. They have little problem shifting from one to the other as the situation demands.



Without these base communities, we can talk about politics and change, but we can’t DO anything about politics and change with much impact.



Second in importance is the local cluster of similar nodes. This means student groups getting together across a city, a local labor council, or a citywide meeting of peace and justice groups, and so on.



Third in importance is the local wider horizontal network of a variety of local clusters of nodes. This means a citywide or CD-wide alliance of labor unions, community organization, student coalitions, peace and justice activists, as well as others.



Fourth in importance are the broader networks of these networked clusters reaching both upward and outward. These are statewide or regional alliances or federations aimed at mobilizations or longer-term lobbying and pressure campaigns.



What Links the Networks?



First, already mentioned, is a common political orientation mentioned above. These can be developed and improved over time as more forces become involved and new tasks are demanded of us.



Second, and perhaps just as important, and in some way more so, are common platforms-packages of immediate and transitional demands for political reform and economic development. Immediate demands widen democracy and redistribute wealth and resources downward. Easier voting, anti- discrimination laws and the living wage are examples Transitional demands alter the structure of power in favor of those at the base-seats for unions on development authorities, worker buyouts of failed but still profitable firms, wider community participation in schools.



The platforms, even though they share a common depression-busting, popular empowerment theme, have to be custom-designed for their localities-city, state or bioregional. Wind farms make no sense in places with little wind; lock and dam modernization means little to places without major rivers. But the process of defining and shaping the platforms of the various levels of the network are an excellent venue in bringing people together for an exercise in participatory democracy. Some of these platform- templates have already been shaped to some degree by DC-based groups like the Institute for Policy Studies, the Blue-Green Alliance, the Apollo Alliance, the Green Jobs Project and others. But others will have to be done from scratch.



Third is shared new media. The networks and clusters need public faces. Naturally, we work to get in the regular mass media, but one way of doing it is using the new interactive media of the blogosphere, but locally. The linked interactivity not only helps people get organized, but their degree of success using it also helps them gain entrance to the mainstream media, locally and nationally. Luckily, the new media doesn’t cost anywhere near as much to put in operation, only the time and talent of those setting them up and running them.



Putting it all together



We should acknowledge two things here. First, many of these organizations and networks already exist, have recently emerged in the Obama campaign, or exist in embryo to various degrees. There are many areas where things have to be done from scratch, but many more do not. What’s needed now is for more interconnections to be formed, and more of these components to become aware of each other, sharing ideas, resources and mobilizing efforts. To borrow from the old Hegelian dialectic, the wider national network exists in itself, but is not yet fully conscious and for itself. Second, we should acknowledge that what we are advocating here, the organization of a new national network and information clearinghouse is an interim project. We can’t say for certain yet what the longer-range organizational outcome will be or even if there will be a single outcome-a realigned and fully progressive Democratic Party, a new third party or labor party, or a new Grassroots Nonpartisan High-Road Alliance of candidates from many parties.



`Progressives for Obama’ is in a position to play a catalytic role in moving forward in a major way. But it should not be alone. Why? Most important is an allied effort understanding the necessary intersection of race, class and gender for a lasting left-progressive alliance. It must also have a grasp on the role and potential power of organized labor and the working class more generally. The combination of these two strengths is what counts.



What is required



First, `Progressives for Obama’ needs some close partners, especially those with base communities of mass democratic organizations with individual members. Not a lot, but those are really willing to work right away. PDA is an obvious choice, but there are more. Jobs with Justice and The Right to the City groups are another. It also needs partners with resources to share-progressive think tanks and several of the new media projects. Some of the existing socialist organizations that backed Obama may also be helpful where they have a degree of strength and influence.



Second, we need some startup money. We probably should approach individuals first, since we need to start quickly. Then we need a development director to work the institutional sources for funding, which take a lot longer.



Third, we need to deploy a designated team of field organizers, people who can move about various regions or the entire country, to meet with groups and people, speak publicly and find the best local area coordinators for the project. These field organizers will have to be paid, or at least have their expenses covered.



Fourth, we need a designated team of new media workers, and the funds to retain a webmaster-manager of our web site and web-centric infoshop clearinghouse. The webmaster should be working for the allied project, but the others can be recruited as allies in the media projects they are already working for. As a team, their first task is to develop our `brand’ and make a big splash in the blogosphere, drawing the people and groups we want to participate in the overall joint effort.



Fifth, we need a designated governance body. Most likely, it can be a coordinating committee with monthly conference calls, together with a smaller and more nimble executive that can write checks. Then main thing is for everyone who has a stake to have a voice and seat at the table. That will get us started, but more formal structures are needed to receive grants.



This needs to be seen as a major new expansion of `Progressives for Obama’ and its allies – and time- urgent as well. The crisis is unfolding and deepening rapidly, as are the opportunities and problems related to the new Obama administration. If we do this well, it will make a big difference.



[Carl Davidson is a field organizer for the Solidarity Economy Network, a national steering committee member of United for Peace and Justice, and a member of the National Coordinating Committee of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism (CCDS). In the 1960s, he was a national secretary of Students of a Democratic Society, and a freedom marcher in Mississippi, and a national leader of the Vietnam antiwar movement. Davidson is the founder and executive director of Networking for Democracy.



Bill Fletcher, Jr., is a longtime labor and international activist and the former President and chief executive officer of TransAfrica Forum, a national non-profit organization organizing, educating and advocating for policies in favor of the peoples of Africa, the Caribbean and Latin America. Fletcher is also a founder of the Black Radical Congress and is a Senior Scholar for the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, DC.



Fletcher was formerly the Vice President for International Trade Union Development Programs for the George Meany Center of the AFL-CIO. At the Meany Center, he worked with foreign labor centers, aiding them in matters of education and organizational change, as well as working to construct stronger ties between respective educational institutions.



Additionally, Fletcher worked domestically to develop union movement capacity in its relation to organizational change/development. Prior the George Meany Center, Fletcher served as Education Director and later Assistant to the President of the AFL-CIO. Fletcher's union staff experience also included the Service Employees International Union(SEIU), where his last position was Assistant to the President for the East and South. He served as the Organizational Secretary/ Administrative Director for the National Postal Mail Handlers Union. Prior to the Mail Handler's Union, Fletcher was an organizer for District 65-United Auto Workers in Boston, Massachusetts.]

Photo: Van Jones and ‘Green Collar’ Workers

[Note from CarlD: While this is a article rather than a paper, I think it contains a vital plank in any jobs program we would want in our basic problem, jobs with new skills for those who need them most.]

It’s Not EasyBecoming Green

By David Roberts

In These Times

One early July morning in Austin, Texas, I sat slumped in a cavernous, featureless conference hall on the last day of Netroots Nation, the annual gathering of progressive bloggers. Half the attendees had already split town. Two days of events and two nights of vigorous celebration had left those who remained bleary-eyed, weakly nursing their bad coffee and stale muffins.

The morning’s only featured speaker was African-American activist Van Jones, co-founder of the national advocacy group Green for All, who had come straight off a plane from the North Pole. (Really.) Given his exhaustion — and ours — Jones could have been forgiven for phoning it in.

Instead, he began joking, cajoling and provoking, weaving an urgent narrative out of class, race, activism and the existential threat of global climate change. Sleepy bloggers sat up a little straighter and closed their laptops. They began nodding, then cheering, then rising to their feet, stomping and shouting. After a half hour, the previously somnolent room hummed with energy.

It’s not just bloggers and activists — Jones has also gotten rapturous reception from business executives, politicians and community groups.

In fact, it’s difficult to think of another progressive activist who has created as much national buzz as quickly. His self-effacing humor, sharp intellect and unapologetic idealism call to mind another black orator who recently found success.

It is not lost on Jones — who, as co-founder of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, spent much of the ’90s organizing around criminal justice and urban issues — that he received exponentially more attention after he started talking green, or that affluent white environmentalists take a certain unearned satisfaction from having him at their meetings and among their ranks. But he has used the spotlight to drive home a message that he has now put to paper in The Green Collar Economy: How One Solution Can Fix Our Two Biggest Problems (HarperOne, October).

The message is fairly simple: Meeting the challenge of global climate change will involve an enormous amount of work — solarizing and retrofitting buildings for energy efficiency, manufacturing electric cars and parts for wind turbines, building public transit systems and smarter electrical grids, and much more.

The next few decades will see the creation of millions of blue-collar jobs that serve to meliorate social and environmental ills — known as “green-collar” jobs.

Jones argues that these jobs should be directed to those who have been most harmed by the “pollution-based economy” — such as ex-felons, recovering addicts, at-risk youth, the working poor, those who have seen their jobs outsourced, and people of color (who have disproportionately suffered from high rates of asthma, cancer and other ailments tied to environmental toxins).

Further, government and the private sector should work together to ensure that they are good jobs, with living wages, decent benefits and clear career paths.

It’s not just a matter of justice, says Jones, but of simple necessity. There will never be sufficient political action on climate change if the only group pushing it is the “eco-elite.” To realize the scale of changes needed — and at the speed needed — will require the broadest possible coalition, big enough to take on the “military-petroleum complex,” as Jones calls it.

That means bringing in the working class and many people of color by focusing on kitchen table issues — jobs, economic security and health. It means toning down the polar bears and Priuses and bringing out the hard hats and caulk guns.

Everyone who isn’t mobilized into the “green growth coalition” will be mobilized against it, warns Jones, just as poor people of color turned out against California’s Proposition 87 in 2006. In that referendum, oil companies spent millions convincing people that the measure, which would have taxed oil companies to pay for clean energy, would increase the price of fuel and food.

The call for green jobs that Jones (among others) helped launch has been taken up by President-elect Barack Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Senate Speaker Harry Reid (D-Nev.), several dozen governors, and — via the Mayors Climate Protection Agreement — more than 900 U.S. mayors.

Just as the green growth narrative gained strength, the country was hit by a devastating economic crisis. Broad consensus has coalesced around the need for large-scale public stimulus spending, just as broad consensus has coalesced around the need for green infrastructure, clean energy, energy efficiency and green-job training.

Van Jones, it would appear, is riding the zeitgeist.

It’s a shame, then, that his book captures so little of his personal magnetism and energy. As a sketch of the green growth movement’s rationale and agenda, The Green Collar Economy is competent — but merely competent. The book often reads like a book report or a lawyer’s brief.

Those who have heard Jones speak will have difficulty hearing his voice behind the earnest, flat-footed prose. Certainly, some of his humor would have served to leaven the heavy proceedings.

At the literary level, Jones has a difficulty that is common with first-time nonfiction writers — how to mix abstraction and anecdote, telling and showing.

Large swaths of high-toned rhetoric are interspersed here and there with awkward lists of examples. Many individual passages shine, but it will take another book or two before Jones masters the art of letting his stories make his points for him.

The author’s natural voice can be most clearly heard where he describes the challenges of building a “hybrid movement” — a “movement at the intersection of the social justice and ecology movements, of entrepreneurship and activism, of inner change and social change.”

Few have better insight into both sides of those divides than Jones, who has spent a career shuttling from Oakland to Marin County, from poverty to affluence, and from concern over the next paycheck to concern over Arctic ice shelves. He has lobbied legislators. He has pitched to idealistic college activists and to weary single moms.

In the process, he has cultivated a kind of deliberate, pragmatic empathy. And the lessons he draws from that — about how liberals can develop a more confident and inclusive approach to power, reclaim a convincing populism and begin working across conventional barriers — are worth the price of the book.

The scientific and economic arguments for urgent action on climate change are impeccable.

The politics are ripe.

The policy proposals — which Jones lays out in great detail over two chapters — are credible.

But the notion that the fractured, isolated camps of the progressive coalition can overcome their hang-ups and unite to shape a just and sustainable future … let’s just say that requires large measures of hope.

Then again, there’s a lot of that going around these days.

[David Roberts is senior staff writer for Grist.org, where he covers energy, politics, and the collisions thereof. He's written in print for Fast Company, Mother Jones, Popular Science, and The American Prospect, online for Vanity Fair and The Nation, and has appeared on Fox's Hannity & Colmes, though he is recovering nicely. He lives in Seattle with his wife, two young boys, and a killer new tree fort.]

Photo: Green jobs installing solar panels

IS SUSTAINABLE
CAPITALISM
AN OXYMORON?

[Note from CarlD: To spur some discussion on both climate change and socialism, I'm posting this article, widely circulated among environmentalists by Rachel's List. Rachel's Introduction: Growth of the human enterprise is wrecking the planet, so we must develop a steady-state economy -- one in which the use of energy and materials remains constant (or declines) instead of always growing. Unfortunately, we have very few concrete proposals for such an economy. David Schweickart of Loyola University in Chicago has proposed an economy that could grow, but does not have to grow, based on competitive markets plus public ownership of productive facilities (factories, farms), renting them to producer co-ops, with investment capital raised by a flat tax on productive assets and distributed each year to all regions of the nation on a per-capita basis. It is time to give these ideas a proper hearing. Schweickart's short book After Capitalism is must reading.--P.M.]

By David Schweickart



The subtitle of Joel Kovel’s The Enemy of Nature (Zed Books, 2007) states his thesis bluntly: The End of Capitalism or the End of the World? Kovel thinks we need a revolution — although he is fully cognizant as to how remote that prospect seems.



Growing numbers of people are beginning to realize that capitalism is the uncontrollable force driving our ecological crisis, only to become frozen in their tracks by the awesome implications of this insight. (p. xi)



Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins and Hunter Lovins also think we need a revolution, but of a different sort than the one envisaged by Kovel. Natural Capitalism (Little, Brown, 1999) is subtitled Creating the Next Industrial Revolution. President Clinton is reported to have called it one of the five most important books in the world today.



Hawken and the Lovinses agree with Kovel that the current model of capitalism is problematic. “Capitalism, as practiced, is a financially profitable, non-sustainable aberration in human development” (p. 5). But they do not see the problem as residing in capitalism itself. They distinguish among four kinds of capital, all necessary for production: human capital, financial capital, manufactured capital and natural capital. The problem with the current form of capitalism, they argue, is its radical mispricing of these factors. Current market prices woefully undervalue — and often do not value at all — the fourth factor: the natural resources and ecological systems “that make life possible and worth living on this planet.”
___________________________________________________________________

All economists recognize that market transactions can involve “externalities” — costs (or benefits) that are not paid for by the transacting parties. All agree that there is a role for governments to play in rectifying these defects. The standard remedies tend to be taxation (for negative externalities) and subsidies (for positive externalities). More recently, “cap and trade” schemes for carbon emissions have been added to the list.



Hawken and the Lovinses argue that these remedies — properly applied – can work. The first step, they say, is to eliminate the perverse incentives now in place. They document the massive subsidies that governments currently provide for ecologically destructive behavior, e.g. highway construction and repair that encourages suburban sprawl and the shift away from more efficient modes of transportation, agricultural subsidies that encourage soil degradation and wasteful use of water, etc.



Second step: impose resource and pollution taxes so as to reflect the true costs of “natural capital.” Sweeten the pie by phasing out all taxes on labor: the payroll tax, which increases unemployment, and income taxes as well. The point is to level the playing field so that more sustainable energy technologies and more energy efficient processes can compete fairly with the destructive practices of “industrial capitalism.” We might even want to go further and subsidize, at least initially, the technologies that reduce the negative environmental impact of our production and consumption choices.



Natural Capitalism is chock full of examples of the shocking waste in our current production and consumption and of the existing technologies and procedures that can reduce our impact on the environment to a fraction of what it is now. Many of these changes are already underway. Many more will follow if appropriate government policies are adopted. Hawken and the Lovinses envisage a bright future. Such a future will come about if we harness the creative energy of capitalism and let the markets work.



Let us examine these two contrasting perspectives. In essence there are two fundamental differences between the “ecosocialism” of Kovel and the “natural capitalism” of Hawken-Lovins.



1. Kovel is deeply distrustful of the profit motive. He does not think greed can serve the good. Hawken-Lovins think that the profit motive can be harnessed so as to provide powerful incentives to develop sustainable sources of energy and to eliminate the energy waste so rampant today.



2. Kovel is convinced that “grow or die” is an imperative of capitalism that renders “sustainable capitalism” impossible. Hawken and the Lovinses do not confront this argument directly, but appear to believe either (a) capitalism is compatible with a steady-state, non- growing economy or (b) an economy can grow indefinitely without consuming more energy and natural resources than it can sustainably reproduce.



Let us examine this second issue first: Capitalism, Grow or Die? Anti- capitalist ecologists always say this. But is this true? It would seem not to be. Capitalism has survived prolonged depressions (the Great One of 1929 lasted a decade). Periods of stagnation have been even more common — witness Japan throughout the 1990s. To be sure, capitalism incentivizes growth, but it is not at all clear that thwarted growth leads to death. We can point to many counterexamples.



It is not true either that the various ecological crises we are facing will bring about “the end of the world.” Consider the recently released Stern Review. If nothing is done, we risk “major disruption to economic and social activity, later in this century and the next, on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and economic depression of the first half of the 20th century.”[1]



This is serious. Some 60 million people died in World War II. The Stern Review estimates as many as 200 million people could be permanently displaced by rising sea levels and drought. But this is not “the end of the world.” Even if the effects are far, far worse, resulting in billions of deaths — a highly unlikely scenario — there would still be lots of us left. If three-quarters of the present population perished, that would still leave us with 1.6 billion people — the population of the planet in 1900. Not the end of the world.



I say this not to minimize the potentially horrific impact of relentless environmental destruction, but to caution against exaggeration. We are not talking about thermonuclear war — which could have extinguished us as a species. (It still might.)



We may not be facing the end of the world — but still, Kovel has a point. From an ecological point of view there is something crazy about capitalism. An ecological worldview emphasizes harmony, sustainability, moderation — rather like that of the ancient Greeks, for whom a constant striving for more was regarded as a mark of an unbalanced, deranged soul. Yet every capitalist enterprise is motivated to grow, and to grow without limit.



The root problem with capitalism is not that individual firms are incentivized to grow, but that the economy as a whole must grow, not to survive, but to remain healthy. Why should it be the case that a capitalist economy must grow to be healthy? The answer to this question is rather peculiar — and very important. A capitalist economy must grow to be healthy because capitalism relies on private investors for its investment funds. These investors are free to invest or not as they see fit. (It is, after all, their money.)



But this makes economic health dependent on “investor confidence,” on, as John Maynard Keynes put it, “the animal spirits” of the investors. If investors do not foresee a healthy return on their investments, commensurate with the risks they are taking, then they won’t invest — at least not domestically. But if they don’t invest, their pessimism becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. The lack of investment translates into layoffs — first in the construction industry and those industries dependent on orders for capital goods, and then, since layoffs lead to a decline in consumer-goods consumption, in other sectors as well. Aggregate demand drops further; the economy slides toward recession.



As we all know, a slumping economy is not just bad for capitalist investors. It is bad for almost everyone. Unemployment rises. Government revenues fall. Indeed, public funds for environmental programs are jeopardized — as mainstream economists are quick to point out, impatient as they are with “anti-growth” ecologists.



So we see: a healthy capitalism requires a steady expansion of consumption. If sales decline, investors lose confidence — as well they should. So, sales must be kept up. Which means that a healthy capitalism requires what would doubtless strike a visitor from another planet (or from a pre-capitalist society) as exceedingly strange — a massive, privately-financed effort to persuade people to consume what they might otherwise find unnecessary.



Government also has a key role to play. Governments must be prepared to go into debt to stimulate the economy when an economy slows down. “Fiscal responsibility” goes out the window, no matter how conservative the government, when people stop buying — as well it should. Those checks we are all getting in the mail, courtesy of President Bush and a Democratic congress, should remind us all how vitally a capitalist economy depends on what so many environmentalists and other social critics deride as “consumerism.”



The problem is not simply “growth.” A healthy capitalism depends, not simply on ever-increasing consumption, but on a steady rate of growth. When the growth rate declines, investors pull back. But a steady rate of growth, so essential to healthy capitalism, implies exponential growth, and exponential growth, to anyone with mathematical sensibilities, is deeply disturbing. If an economy grows 3%/year — the US average growth rate during the 20th century — consumption doubles every 24 years — which translates into a 16-fold increase in consumption over the course of a century. Needless to say, exponential growth tends to stress the environment. Even a much lower growth rate, say the 1.2%/year that the Stern Report assumes, entails a doubling of global consumption ever 60 years. As Kenneth Boulding (himself an economist) has noted, “Only a madman or an economist thinks exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world.”[2]



We don’t have to imagine “forever.” Simply note that if our economy were to continue to grow at 3%/year throughout the 21st century, we will be consuming 16 times more in 2100 than we are now. Not sixteen percent more. Sixteen times more. Are there rational beings who find this plausible?



There is an important counter-argument we need to consider. Growth need not add to resource depletion or pollution. GDP is a quantitative figure that doesn’t pretend to correlate with general well-being. (An oil spill that puts lots of people to work cleaning it up enhances GDP; when harried couples eat out more often, no longer having time to cook at home, GDP goes up.) By the same logic, if unemployed people are put to work planting trees, GDP will go up. So it is possible to imagine a world in which GDP keeps going up while environmental quality steadily improves. Isn’t it?



How should we evaluate this rejoinder? You will recall that in evaluating the Hawken-Lovins case for “natural capitalism, I pointed out that they do not confront the “grow or die” argument directly, but that they must believe that either (a) capitalism is compatible with a steady-state, non-growing economy or (b) an economy can grow indefinitely without consuming more energy and natural resources than it can sustainably reproduce. My argument thus far has been directed at (a). The rejoinder claims (b).



Now I can’t prove to you that (b) is false. But it should be noted that we are no longer talking economic science anymore. We’re talking about faith — the economists’ faith that exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world.



Can exponential growth go on forever? We can be almost certain it won’t make us happier — at least not those of us who are doing most of the consuming and polluting right now. We know that increased consumption, once we get beyond a certain point, does not translate into increased happiness. Bill McKibben cites some of the evidence:



“Compared to 1950, the average American family now owns twice as many cars, uses 21 times as much plastic, and travels 25 times farther by air. Gross Domestic Product has tripled since 1950 in the US. We obviously eat more calories. And yet — the satisfaction meter seems not to have budged. More Americans say their marriages are unhappy, their jobs are hideous, and they don’t like the place where they live. The number who, all things considered, say they are ‘very happy’ with their lives has slid steadily over that period…. In the United Kingdom per capita gross domestic product grew 66% between 1973 and 2001, and yet people’s satisfaction with their lives changed not a whit. Nor did it budge in Japan, despite a fivefold increase in income in the postwar years.”[3]



There is a deep assumption built into the argument. If there is no alternative to capitalism, then we might as well assume that growth can go on forever in a finite world. A belief that allows for hope is surely better than one that counsels despair.



Can we conceive of an economic alternative to capitalism that is (a) economically viable, (b) not dependent on growth for its stability, yet (c) conducive to the entrepreneurial innovation we will need to get though the current crisis? The answer, I would argue, is clearly yes. In my view theoretical analysis, well supported by empirical evidence, strongly supports the thesis that a truly democratic economy could satisfy the above criteria. Needless to say, I can’t do justice to this claim in the space of a short article, but let me at least sketch the basic institutions of an alternative model.[4]



The term “market economy” is often used as a synonym for capitalism — by both proponents and critics — but this is wrong. Capitalism should be thought of as an amalgam of three distinct kinds of markets: markets for commodities, for labor and for capital. That is to say, there are markets for goods and services, there are labor markets, and there are those mysterious financial markets.



Suppose we keep our markets for goods and services, but democratize the other two. Suppose we democratize labor — have our businesses run democratically. Suppose businesses are communities, not legal entities that can be bought or sold. Management is appointed by a worker council elected by the workforce, one-person, one-vote. These enterprises compete with one another in the market.



Such enterprises can be expected to be efficient. Workers do not receive wages but a specified share of the firm’s profit. Hence everyone has a direct, tangible financial stake in the company’s performing well. Everyone is motivated, not only to work efficiently, but to monitor co-workers — thus reducing the need for external supervision. It is not surprising, then, that empirical studies that compare democratic firms to comparable capitalist firms consistently find the former performing at least as well as the latter, and often better.



But here is something interesting. Although democratic and capitalist firms are both motivated to produce efficiently and to satisfy consumer desires, they are strikingly different in their orientation toward growth. Under conditions of constant returns to scale, capitalist firms expand; democratic firms do not. For capitalist firms aim at maximizing total profits, whereas democratic firms aim at maximizing profit per worker. That is to say, if the owners of a capitalist firm can make $X under present conditions, they can make $2X by doubling the size of their operation. But if a democratic firm doubles its size, it doubles its workforce, leaving its per-capita income unchanged.



This is an enormously important structural difference, with implications that go well beyond environmental concerns. But let us focus on those that do bear on the question at hand.



One implication: democratic competition is less cut-throat. Firms compete for market share, but not for market dominance. This means that democratic firms — when competing with other democratic firms — do not face the same “grow or die” imperative that capitalist firms face.



Neither greed nor fear works the same way. However greedy workers may be, they cannot increase their incomes by expanding unless economies of scale are significant. At the same time, they don’t have to worry so much about being driven out of business by a more innovative or efficient rival. They have more time to adjust, to copy whatever successful innovations their rival has introduced. (Non-profit institutions are similar to democratic firms in this regard. Successful universities, for example, do not keep expanding. They compete for students, but they do not drive their competitors out of business so as to grab their market share. When educational innovations occur, they tend to spread, administrators being under pressure to adopt “best practices.”)



A second implication: When innovation brings about a productivity gain, workers are free to opt for leisure instead of higher consumption. This option is virtually non-existent in a capitalist firm. Owners do not increase their profits by allowing their employees to work less. But if excess consumption (consumerism) is a serious environmental threat, and if market competition is essential to an efficiently functioning economy, then it is vital to have a system that offers non-consumption incentives to its businesses.



The second key change involves democratizing investment. Space limitations preclude a detailed treatment. Suffice it to say that it no longer makes sense to depend on the “animal spirits” of private investors — and the incredibly opaque financial instruments they’ve created to maintain economic stability. Alternatives are really not so hard to imagine, although these possibilities are not discussed in polite company. In a couple of words: generate our investment funds by taxing enterprises (a flat-rate capital-assets tax is optimal), then return the proceeds to regions on a per-capita basis to be reinvested in the local economy.



Some consequences of this structural change: investors no longer need to be kept happy for fear of recession; no need to worry about capital flight. Regions do not compete for capital; regions get their fair share every year. Investment funds can be channeled into projects consistent with the wishes of the citizenry.



To summarize: I’ve argued that Hawken-Lovins are right that ecological sustainability is possible in a market economy, but that Kovel is also right: we need to get beyond capitalism. It is irrational to rely on an economic system that must continually grow to remain healthy. This truth is becoming ever more difficult to deny. Here’s a quote from a recent Nobel laureate in economics.



“The solutions to these problems — inequality (especially that of grinding poverty in a world of unprecedented prosperity) and of public goods (that is, goods people share together, such as the environment) will almost certainly call for institutions that take us beyond the capitalist market economy.”



That’s Amartya Sen, from his 1999 book, Development as Freedom (Anchor Books, p. 267).[5] I think we are in position now to see what those institutions might be.



==============



Notes



1. Sir Nicolas Stern, The Economics of Climate Change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), p. ii.



2. Quoted in Mancur Olsen and Hans-Martin Landsberg (eds), The No Growth Society (Norton, 1973), p. 97.



3. Bill McKibben, “Happiness Is…” The Ecologist, (January 2, 2007), p. 36.



4. For a detailed presentation, see my After Capitalism (Rowman and Littlefield, 2002). For a more technical treatment, see my Against Capitalism (Cambridge University Press, 1993).



5. For additional confirmation that the thesis defended here is becoming more mainstream, see James Gustave Speth, The Bridge at the Edge of the World: Capitalism, the Environment and Crossing from Crisis to Sustainability (Yale University Press, 2008). Speth is currently Dean of Yale University’s School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. He has served as President Jimmy Carter’s White House environmental advisor and as head of the UN’s largest agency for international development. He is, in the words of Time magazine , the “ultimate insider.” He doesn’t spell out an alternative and he doesn’t want to call the future “socialist,” but his book “is, however, anti- capitalist in the sense that it argues that society and governments should no longer cede special significance to the objectives or moral claims of the owners of capital” (p. 190). He has become convinced, reluctantly he says, that capitalism as we know it is unsustainable.



==========



[This article is based on a talk David Schweickart gave June 29, 2008 at the Surviving Climate Change roundtable in St. Louis. He is author of Against Capitalism and After Capitalism along with numerous articles in social and political philosophy. He holds a Ph.D. in mathematics and a Ph.D. in Philosophy and is Professor of Philosophy at Loyola University.]