Why do Ecosocialists Criticize Socialism and Ecology?

Humanity is facing a huge environmental crisis that is caused by the dialectical interaction of nature and society. The recent report by the International Panel on Climate Change show us the dimensions of danger.[2] Experts anticipate that rainfall and storms will rise in density and whirlwind will get under way North and South.[3] Flash floods will appear, and in others aridness will spread, crops will not yield in many fields and increase famine. It will effect both humanity and nature. Scilicet, current economic system is begeting an irreversible disaster and all of these point out necessity of being changed. At this point, two major titles are coming into question: socialism, and ecology.

As it is known, thinking about alternatives instead of capitalism, socialism is still the first thing that comes to mind. As it was specified in Ecosocialist Manifesto, 'however beaten down and unrealized, the notion of socialism still stands for the supersession of capital'[4]. On the other hand, ecology is important to understand cycle of nature. Nevertheless, ecosocialism recommends thinking about them together with their criticism. Below, I handle their criticism in general terms and also mention my criticism about it.

Criticism of Ecology

There are several reasons to be criticized of ecology by ecosocialist. One of them gives information quantitatively and does not care about explaining relations of variables. The numbers are understood quickly, but at the same time it degrades realities to the numbers. Other hand, the realities need to be explained with their internal relations. That is one of the minus points of ecology. Second one is illusion of clean capitalism that arises from several ecology politics refuse relationship between productivity and capital.[5] It claims that economical growth is possible in a clean way with ecology politics.

It should be mentioned about natural capital which is created by the supporters of ecological economics. It points out the nature, but it gives a monetary value to it. Paul Burkett specifies that this concept is related to neo-classic economy from rather being ecological and he gives a sample that the supporters of natural capital view are with the inclusion of the main stream (Hicks, Seraffy etc.)[6]On the other hand, this concept renders legitimate commercialization of nature and reduction a production input of it.

Ecosocialists mention that green capitalism and green parties are not efficient enough to prevent devastating capitalism. According to them, green parties are inclined to move towards bourgeois democracy and reformism[7]. Namely, they intend to work to not solve problems; intend to sustain them. That is it that they understand from sustainability. On the other hand, “ecologic products” just wear an ecological hat under capitalism. Ecological production is fostering from non-ecological production and there is a dialectical relation between them. Capitalism accomplish to turn in its favor to movements that are against to itself. In this light, it added a new sector to itself: green industry. Zizek says: “Sometimes, the thinkg itself can serve as its own mask”. If thought over for some time, the reason of the quote will be understood easily: “Green” is just a mask of capitalism. For this reason, ecosocialists criticize it.

Critisism of Socialism

Socialism is often critisized by ecosocialists especially due to the emphasis on productivity. Abundance of goods is for preventing inequality and aimed at welfare society under socialism, but socialism does not to pay attention to natural circle. The sample of Soviet Russia, Chernobyl disaster is one of the significant reasons. However, it has come across that the purpose of socialism is not over producing, but the purpose is giving more free time to laborer in the texts of Marx and Engels.

It is also criticized because of its bureaucratic structures and authoritarian attitude, but socialism is just a transition haunt, as Marx and Engels said. It has both qualifications of capitalism and qualification of communism[8]. For this reason, it should not be conceptualized as a separate society.

One of the other critiques of socialism is about being changed from capitalism. It can be said to change capitalism, but essential structures and relations of it are still same. But, Marxism has already been handled them. For instance; laborers earn more now, but so do capitalists. In other words, income gap is still increasing. On the other hand, alienation and exploitation have been going on. So, Marxism is still valid in the sense of explaining capitalism.

References:

[1] Marx, K., Capital, Volume III, New York: Vintage, 1981, p.959 [2] International Panel on Climate Change: Assesment Report, 2013, [online] Available at:<https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR5-Chap1_FINAL.pdf> [Accessed 22 May 2016] [3] An Interview with Jonathan Neale, 2014, Climate Change and Socialist, [online] Available at:<http://socialistresistance.org/6210/climate-change-and-socialists> [Accessed 24 April 2016] [4] Kovel, J. and Lövy, M., 2001, Ecosocialist Manifest, New Socialist Magazine, [online] Available at:<https://www.google.de/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://newsocialist.org/attachments/132_NewSocialist-Issue62.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjz_9yAkLzMAhVKIMAKHdl9AkoQFggdMAE&usg=AFQjCNFaBzTtjXNbIIoibCGGzPanH4sIHw> [Accessed 28 April 2016] [5] Lövy, M., 2001, Ecosocialisme, trans.Hande Turan Abadan, Ankara: Epos Published, 2014, p.25 [6] Burkett, P., 2006, Marxism and Ecological Economics: Toward a Red and Green Political Economy, trans. E. Günçiner, Istanbul: Yordam Published, 2008, p.131 [7] Kovel, J., 2002, The Enemy of Nature: The End of Capitalism or The End of Nature?, trans. G. Koca, Istanbul: Metis Published, 2004, p.294 [8] Sweezy, P., 1981, Four Lectures on Marxism, trans, T.Öncel, Istanbul:Yordam Books, 2010, p.146