Is Socialism the Solution to Climate Change?
We can — and to survive, we must — transform and even end within the next ten years the failed system of capitalism that now threatens to collapse earth’s life support systems and with them, human civilization. We must replace that economic system with one that respects boundaries and limits; one that nurtures ‘soil, aquifers, rainfall, ice, the patterns of winds and currents, pollinators, biological abundance and diversity’; one that delivers social and economic justice.
Ann Pettifor, The Case for the Green New Deal, 2019
Climate change is a symptom of the environmental crisis. The disease is over-production and over-consumption and treating the natural environment as a ‘natural resource’ for capital creation. In a postindustrial age we are realizing the excesses created by the industrial age. We cannot continue to treat the planet as a utilitarian object for the creation of capitalist wealth. Diagnosing the problem as over-production inherent in capitalism naturally leads to the solution that we should abandon this economic model. This leads many in the green movement to advocate for a type of socialism that limits the destructive excesses of capitalism for environmental justice and social justice. This generates various forms of ‘eco-socialism’ from ‘The Green New Deal’ to ‘Build Back Better’.
When we say ‘socialism’ what do we mean? We may think of socialism on a spectrum situated between capitalism on one side and a command economy on the other. On one hand is capitalism with private production and consumption. Private individuals and corporations own the means of production, and private individuals are given the freedom to make their own choices on consumption. ‘Democratic Socialism’ is a form of socialism where the government regulates to a degree consumption and some forms of production. Production and consumption are still held by private entities, but these are regulated by the government. Next come socialism proper, where the means of production, distribution, and consumption are controlled by the government. In this system all segments of society fall under the socialist regime to include education, healthcare, art, religion, and social institutions. The most extreme case of socialism is a command economy where the government plans and executes all production in society.
To understand what type of socialism is needed the solutions to climate change must be analyzed. Economic solutions involve using ‘carbon’ as a key metric, either imposing a carbon tax, or removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to create net-zero carbon emissions. Since almost everything in the world economy creates carbon emissions from agriculture to transportation, a carbon tax would effectively be a tax on production. Socialism would be needed to implement regulations and restrictions for carbon intensive forms of production and consumption. Net-zero is even more extreme. Machines for removing carbon from the atmosphere and sequestering them into the ground would be needed to reduce the 400 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and reduce it to assumed pre-industrial levels of 280 ppm. Since capitalism creates a profit by producing and selling a product, sequestering carbon from the atmosphere has no intrinsic economic value and would need to be funded by government tax programs. At a minimum, a form of democratic socialism would be needed to regulate all sectors of the economy: production, distribution, and consumption. To achieve net-zero would require the government actively managing all forms of production and a command economy would be needed. China, Russia, Iran and North Korea are the few command economies, and it is doubtful these states would implement net-zero policies.
An economic causal chain of relationships create climate change. Over-production is based on capitalism and capitalism creates systems of government that support it. We may call this ‘state capitalism’. Capital captures government regulatory bodies and bends the will of the government to the will of private industry. The concept of ‘over-production’ intrinsic to capital also exists in socialism. Capital, contrasting Marxist theory, captures socialist economies just as effectively as it does capitalist ones. The only difference, from an environmental point of view, is that production is owned by private industry as opposed to the government. Over-production is a feature of socialism just as it is capitalism. Command economies such as China over-produce just as much, if not more, than capitalist ones. The only difference is that production is planned and executed by the government. In the most extreme cases of government capture, no regulation of industry is possible, as the two work hand-in-hand with each other. In small European economies democratic socialism may work to successfully regulate production and consumption, but in larger countries like the United States corporations have captured the government regulatory bodies and give tax credits to corporations to over-produce. Neither capitalism or socialism can address the problems with over-production as the modern world functions on labor, work, and producing. Governments that attempt to slow or stop over-production are slowing the economy and putting workers out of jobs. Capitalism and socialism both work toward a type of ‘state capitalism’ where there is an interpenetration of government and big business. This creates an ‘administered’ society where the government supports over-production and over-consumption. From an environmental point of view, United States style global capitalism is indistinguishable from Chinese communism.
A new economic system needs to be developed, beyond both capitalism and socialism, where production is controlled by actual demand, and not to create surplus-value. This system has not been developed yet, but we can look to the analogy of a restaurant. Capitalism is like an all you can eat buffet. It empowers the consumer, but over-produces and encourages over-consumption. People get fat from putting too much food on their plate and over-eating at the buffet. Socialism is like eating mom’s home-cooked meal. It is produced by mom, but the child has no freedom to eat something else. The child must eat what is given them in whatever portions the mother decides. This infantilizes the consumer, limiting consumption to what government gives them. The best solution would be a restaurant where people can order from a menu. Instead of over-production, this is production on demand. People are free to choose what they consume, and the kitchen only cooks what people order. In Marxist language, this is ‘use-value’ instead of ‘surplus-value’. People would consume only what they need, and over-production to create ‘surplus-value’ would be eliminated.
The solution is neither capitalism or socialism, but instead an on-demand economy where people obtain exactly what they need, use-value, but without the need to over-produce, surplus-value. The postindustrial technology of big data, the internet of things, AI, robotics in manufacturing, and smart cities are making this a reality. It is a world of on-demand commodities, content, services, and social needs being met with just the right amount of production. This is sustainable production.
All products will have become services. “I don’t own anything. I don’t own a car. I don’t own a house. I don’t own any appliances or any clothes,” writes Danish MP Ida Auken. Shopping is a distant memory in the city of 2030, whose inhabitants have cracked clean energy and borrow what they need on demand. It sounds utopian, until she mentions that her every move is tracked and outside the city live swathes of discontents, the ultimate depiction of a society split in two.
World Economic Forum, 8 predictions for the world
The danger in this new on-demand economy is technological capture by private industry working with the government; an administered society of bureaucratic control. Private industry can capture this new economy by owning the intellectual property that makes up the technology. Governments can capture it by instituting laws and policies. The World Economic Forum have proposed to capture this on-demand economy in the ‘Great Reset’, turning the whole world into renters instead of owners. In this new regime state capitalism captures the means of production and distribution. The individual would own nothing. The problem with eco-socialism is something far worse; governments of the world captured by oligarchs. This future looks more like Russia and China, than it does Europe or the United States.
Before proposing socialist solutions to climate change, we should remember that government capture by oligarchs, capitalist, dictators, and madmen is not only possible, but historically probable. Instead, as we build a new on-demand sustainable economy, we need to do so to respect the rights and liberties of the individual and of democratic institutions. A fundamental right in Western democratic society is private wealth ownership. From this right all others originate. We must not abandon democratic principles in search of solutions for climate change. As we build and On-Demand Economy, we must endeavor to restore human rights and environmental rights to build a just society, not simply a more efficient one. We must ensure ‘capital’ is equally distributed to all members of society. As John Locke eloquently stated; all human beings have the natural right to life, liberty, and property. We must hold these ideals as we move to an On-Demand Economy and not fall into the trap of socialism or state capitalism.
