Eco-Socialism and the State
Brief: Climate Vanguard, 09 September 2024
Introduction
Eco-socialism carries the “double objective” of meeting everyone’s needs within planetary boundaries [1]. It achieves this by supplanting the root causes of our compounding social and ecological crises – capitalism and imperialism – with a new society grounded in human and non-human flourishing.
In part one of this three-part series on revolutionary transition, we examine the importance of state power to realising eco-socialism.
What is ‘the state’?
The state is an organ of ruling class domination [2]. This is observable in the origins of the state, which emerged only when society developed to a stage where different classes became locked into irreconcilable conflict [3].
At risk of these classes “[consuming] themselves and society in fruitless struggle,” it became necessary to create a state with the ability to “alleviate the conflict and keep it within the bounds of order” [4]. This is the state’s primary function: to maintain the stable foundation necessary for the perpetuation of class society, and therefore, the domination of one class over others.
-
Class is the relationship that different groups of people have to the means of production. Different modes of production give rise to different classes. For example, under feudalism, there were two primary classes: serfs and lords. Serfs had their own land, but all surplus was expropriated by the lord.
Under capitalism, the current dominant mode of production, the two primary classes are the working class and the capitalist class. The working class owns nothing but their own labour-power (i.e. the capacity to work). In order to access the things necessary for survival (food, water, energy etc.), they’re forced to sell their labour-power to the capitalist class, which maintains private ownership of the means of production.
Under capitalism, we can observe how the state performs this function across three key institutions:
1. Government
In capitalist democracies, voters get to choose between various parties which tend to be either conservative, liberal, or social democratic [5]. This is presented as a choice between diametric opposites [6]. Indeed, these parties do have real disagreements, whether it be on the veracity of human-caused climate breakdown or whether gender identity is determined solely by biological sex.
Ultimately, though, all of these parties share an agreement that capitalism is the only legitimate way to structure society [7].
A recent example is Rachel Reeves, the UK’s new Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said that “this Labour party sees profit as not something to be disdained but of business succeeding” [8]. Indeed, there is a reason why people so commonly say “all politicians are the same.”
2. Civil service
The civil service, composed of state employees in non-governmental positions, is tasked with “politically neutral” public administration (i.e. the management of public programmes and policy) [9]. But in reality, policy implementation is a process replete with political considerations, from permitting a new fracked gas installation to amending public health coverage [10].
And that says nothing of the civil service’s north star: acting in the so-called ‘national interest.’ For example, the UK’s Directory of Civil Service Guidance, states that “national interest requires that there should be some continuity of policy,” especially in the area of “foreign policy” [11]. In the case of Israel, “continuity” in the “national interest” is little more than the perpetuation of imperialism, apartheid, and genocide in the interest of the capitalist class [12].
If a government that credibly challenged the capitalist class came to power, the objective of the civil service as a whole would be to resist and limit the damage to capital. Indeed, we can look to the UK again, where an anonymous civil servant wrote before the 2019 general election: “I work in the civil service – and it will resist a Corbyn government” [13].
3. Police and military
The state has a monopoly on violence, meaning it has total control over the ‘legitimate’ use of force. This is embodied in the function of both the police and the military. They are the ultimate expression of the state’s repressive power, one that emerges from the shadows whenever people’s consent to the capitalist system begins to crack [14].
The primary role of the police is not to protect people, but to protect the institution of private property and suppress any political movements that threaten it [15]. This was just as true of the London Metropolitan Police when it was formed in 1829 to crush labour strikes as it was of the Chicago Police Department, which, under the direction of the FBI, assassinated Illinois Black Panther Party Chairman Fred Hampton in 1969 [16]. And it remains true today, as police forces across the Global North fire tear gas and rubber bullets on student protests for a free Palestine.
Similarly, the primary role of the military is not to protect the public from ‘foreign danger,’ but to secure and defend imperialist interests. An infamous example is the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. This illegal aggression was waged under the false pretence that Saddam Hussein was planning to deploy weapons of mass destruction on the Western world, providing cover for the US’ real motivation of seizing Iraq’s vast oil reserves and forging another client state in the Gulf region.
The eco-socialist state
The capitalist state is, by definition, preventing an eco-socialist transition. But that doesn’t mean that the state, as an organ of class rule, is unnecessary, or even obstructive, to building eco-socialism. Rather, central to liberatory strategy must be an orientation towards gaining state power and qualitatively transforming it into a vehicle for building eco-socialism.
There are two reasons why:
1. The state’s capacity to transform society at scale
The state has the capacity to initiate an eco-socialist transition by nationalising key sections of the economy, including banks, foreign trade, energy, transport, and food production [17]. This is a necessary first step towards doing away with the profit motive, democratising the economy, and further shifting the balance of power away from the capitalist class.
With the means of production in public hands, the state can then orchestrate a process of democratic eco-socialist planning.
This conscious orientation of production and resource allocation towards democratically determined, socio-ecological objectives is not just about scaling up certain industries (e.g. healthcare, renewable energy production, education, housing) and scaling down others (e.g. arms, yachts, private jets, advertising, factory farming) [18]. It also entails a complex process of transforming the very essence of production, which has been structurally shaped by the imperative to maximise profit [19].
An eco-socialist transition of the transport sector, for example, involves fundamentally transforming both the methods of transport we use as well as society’s relationship to travel. This includes, but is not limited to, reducing long distance trade flows, enabling people to work closer to home, centring bicycles and mass public transit in cities, and building extensive inter-regional high-speed rail networks [20]. But this complex process would not only have to be applied to transport, but throughout the economy, from social service provisioning to urban planning, and far-reaching agrarian reform.
This mammoth effort will not be accomplished without a coordinating body (i.e. the state) that can strategically direct investment and guide society’s productive capacities, especially within the narrow time frame to prevent irreversible climate and ecological collapse [21].
Finally, these elements of eco-socialism must be possible around the world. This requires demilitarisation in the Global North, sovereign debt cancellation for countries in the Global South, and the payment of climate and ecological reparations [22]. In turn, national liberation becomes a necessary prerequisite for global eco-socialist transition, once again making the state a critical terrain of struggle [23].
2. The state’s capacity to defend eco-socialist construction
In addition to supporting the transformation of society at scale, the state also has a key role to play in defending the advances made towards eco-socialist liberation.
The process of eco-socialist transition does not start from zero; any new society will have to contend with the fact that it will be “stamped with the birthmarks of the old society” [24].
One of these “birthmarks” is that during the process of eco-socialist transition, particularly in the early phases, a domestic capitalist class will remain [25]. And this class, that feels their power and control slipping away, will inevitably respond with various attempts to derail, sabotage, and reverse the eco-socialist transition. Perhaps even more threatening are the external forces of counter-revolution, with imperialist powers and the entire capitalist world-system descending upon any liberatory project that seriously threatens the present state of things.
This is not speculation but a matter of historical fact. Following the Russian Revolution, 14 imperialist armies from across the world invaded and fought alongside the anti-communist Whites to regain power [26]. And after the Cuban Revolution, the US attempted an invasion at the Bay of Pigs, before strangling the Cuban economy with a multi-decade blockade [27].
A throughline here is that the state was necessary for beating back counter-revolution. As in the above examples, this includes defensive capacities, but more importantly, it relates to the broader process of democratising state resources and building popular institutions – both essential for defending eco-socialist advances from the revanchist impulses of the old ruling class.
A qualitatively different state
It’s crucial to recognise that an eco-socialist state, performing the above two functions, would be qualitatively different to any capitalist state.
Two primary features characterise this difference:
1. Democracy
The eco-socialist state is defined by a radical expansion of democracy, in all senses.
Politically, this includes combining forms of direct and representative democracy to produce fuller electoral democracy [28]. In addition, officials at all levels of the eco-socialist state are elected on a term-limited basis, subject to recall, paid the average annual income, and embedded in social movements, ensuring that they remain accountable to popular will [29].
Economically, we can imagine a model where there remains a central planning mechanism, while “overall priorities [are] established through democratic processes” [30]. As was the case in Chile under socialist president Salvador Allende, the state can also act as a centralised coordinating body alongside extensive worker self-management [31].
Socially, everyone’s basic material needs would be guaranteed under eco-socialism. The resulting freedoms (e.g. freedom from food insecurity, from the fear of losing housing, from involuntary unemployment) provide the essential preconditions for all to engage in civil society and communal self-management far beyond anything experienced in capitalist democracies [32].
2. Withering
The eco-socialist state, in contrast to the capitalist state, is temporary. That is, the transformation of the capitalist state into the eco-socialist state sets into motion the decomposition of the state itself.
Recall that the state, by definition, is an organ of domination of one class over others. However, as the eco-socialist transition reaches a more advanced stage and begins to eradicate the material basis of class society, the state gradually becomes obsolete. This is because without class and, thus, without class domination, there is no need for a state. As Friedrich Engels said, in the revolutionary process, “the state is not ‘abolished,’” rather “it withers away” [33].
We can look to Venezuela for a proto-example of withering. Hugo Chávez understood that transforming Venezuelan society required popular participation [34]. People should not just observe from the sidelines; they had to be active protagonists in their own liberation [35]. The vessel for popular participation came in the form of communes – local democratic structures responsible for community self-governance [36].
The commune model was directly seeded by the Venezuelan state. This demonstrates how the grassroots structures of a communist future can emerge through the direction of a sunsetting eco-socialist state [37].
Competing theories
It’s important to note that other political approaches to societal transformation have a different orientation to the state, either engaging with it in an reformist manner or refusing to engage with it at all. Both are insufficient for realising eco-socialism and winning liberation.
Addressing social democracy
Social democracy is a political approach that, in theory, seeks to gradually transition society away from capitalism by reforming existing political-economic institutions and systems [38]. However, the delusion of this theory of change has been proven by history [39].
Social democracy’s heyday was in the mid-20th century when countries across the Global North instituted a range of social welfare programmes that increased people’s access to employment and basic services, including education and healthcare [40]. These advances were won by powerful, organised working-class movements, which were led by militant trade unions and leftist parties [41].
However, despite its radical origins, social democracy, as a real-world project, lost its anti-capitalist edge, evolving into a dull instrument to simply treat capitalism’s worst symptoms. Moreover, because it seeks to tame, rather than abolish, capitalist exploitation and oppression, its victories are only ever temporary. With the capitalist ruling class still in power, the reversal of hard-earned reforms is inevitable, as has been shown by the past 50 years of neoliberalism [42].
In addition, social democracy relies on imperialist appropriation [43]. With the capitalist class still in power, losses in profit from decreased exploitation in the imperial core are recouped through super-exploitation in the periphery.
Social democracy remains the logic behind well-known policies that are championed by the Global North’s ecological Left, including the Green New Deal in the US and the European Green Deal in the EU, which aim to combine ecological and social objectives without departing from capitalist social relations or imperialist dynamics in the world system [44].
Interestingly, although such reformist policies are sold to us as more ‘politically pragmatic,’ reactionary forces have resisted them every step of the way [45]. This highlights a deeper truth about political strategy: a reformist approach is not an effective way to achieve even mild reforms. As Lenin said, “reforms are won as a result of the revolutionary class struggle, as a result of its independence, mass force and steadfastness” [46].
All this underlines the inadequacy of social democracy: it recognises the utility of the state to improve people’s lives, but will never win liberation for all.
Addressing anarchism
Anarchism proposes an entirely different route. It is a revolutionary, anti-capitalist political approach, which opposes all forms of domination and oppression [47]. While it is a diverse school of thought, anarchists share the core belief that political authority, which is an expression of domination, is unjustifiable [48]. Therefore, they object to using the state to build eco-socialism [49].
The central problem with this approach is that it confuses the ultimate objective – a society free of all domination – with the necessary process of transcending capitalist imperialism and realising a new world. Liberatory political strategy must first and foremost be rooted in a sober analysis of the concrete conditions.
Currently, conditions are characterised by the existence of class society and the domination of the capitalist class over the working and oppressed majority. As such, liberatory strategy must entail some form of political coercion to shift this balance of power, e.g. through the expropriation of capitalists [50]. This can only be done at the necessary scale and speed by wielding state power [51]. Moreover, class society will not disappear overnight, and as long as classes exist, so too will the state as an organ of class rule [52]. This alone makes the state a necessary and critical terrain of struggle.
Driven by values and ideals rather than an assessment of real existing material conditions, anarchism is utopian. It does not provide adequate proposals about how to address the socio-ecological crises we are facing in the 21st century, nor how to provide essential services to all as we transition away from capitalism [53]. The scale and complexity of capitalism today necessitates large-scale organisation, global coordination, and the capacity to confront ruling class interests [54].
In other words, anarchism lacks a theory of transition that can meet this moment of proliferating global crises, extend the struggle to combat them, and carry it forward to collective liberation.
That being said, there is much to be learned from anarchist organising, including certain practices of direct democracy, opposition to oppression in all forms, and a willingness to take radical action – be that in the form of mutual aid programmes or forest occupations [55]. Ultimately, we have more in common than not, and, thus, should act together in our struggle to build a more democratic society [56].
The revolutionary eco-socialist imperative
Another political approach exists – one which has been handed down, expanded, and updated by generations of anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist movements, inspiring radical thought and action around the world: revolutionary (eco-)socialism.
Revolutionary eco-socialism is not a dogmatic programme, but a method [57]. It allows movements to carry out a concrete analysis of the conditions in which they are organising, assess potentially revolutionary social forces in society, identify contradictions in the system, and strategise how to apply pressure on them to advance the struggle for eco-socialism. In this way, revolutionary eco-socialism provides a grounded theory of transition.
This theory of transition entails the popular classes controlling and transforming the state to end imperialist oppression, dismantle capitalist exploitation, and abolish systematic ecological destruction [58]. It also acknowledges that the state is the institution in society that has the practical capacities and operates at the scale necessary to achieve these world-historical objectives [59].
To control and transform the state, eco-socialist organisers must build revolutionary organisations with the exploited and oppressed majorities. Only in this way can we generate and channel radical social power towards winning liberation.
Bibliography
[2] Lenin, Vladimir. The State and Revolution. Lenin Internet Archive, 1999.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Miliband, Ralph. The State in Capitalist Society. New York: Basic Books, 1969.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[9] Miliband, Ralph. The State in Capitalist Society. New York: Basic Books, 1969.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Cabinet Office. Directory of Civil Service Guidance – Volume 2: Collected Guidance. London, 2002.
[15] Vitale, Alex S. The End of Policing. London: Verso Books, 2018.
[16] Ibid.
[19] Ajl, Max. A People’s Green New Deal. London: Pluto Press, 2021.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Olk, Christopher, Colleen Schneider, and Jason Hickel. (2023) “How to pay for saving the world: Modern Monetary Theory for a degrowth transition,” Ecological Economics, 214.
[22] Ajl, Max. A People’s Green New Deal. London: Pluto Press, 2021.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Lenin, V. I. State and Revolution. Connecticut: Martino Publishing, 2011.
[28] Harnecker, Marta. A World to Build: New Paths toward Twenty-First Century Socialism. New York: Monthly Review Press, 2015.
[32] Poulantzas, Nicos. (2020) “Towards a Democratic Socialism,” Jacobin, Accessed 25 July 2024.
Harnecker, Marta. A World to Build: New Paths Toward Twenty-First Century Socialism. New York: Monthly Review Press, 2015.
[34] Harnecker, Marta. Rebuilding the Left. London: Zed Books, 2007.
[35] Ibid.
[36] Ibid.
[37] Ibid.
[38] Luxemburg, Rosa. (1900). “Reform or Revolution,” Marxists Internet Archive. Accessed 4 July 2024.
Malm, Andreas. Corona, Climate, Chronic Emergency: War Communism in the Twenty-First Century. London: Verso, 2020.
[39] Luxemburg, Rosa. (1900). “Reform or Revolution,” Marxists Internet Archive. Accessed 4 July 2024.
[40] Rainford, John. A Short History of Social Democracy. Resistance Books, 2015.
[41] Ajl, Max. A People’s Green New Deal. London: Pluto Press, 2021.
[42] Rainford, John. A Short History of Social Democracy From Socialist Origins to Neoliberal Theocracy. London: Resistance Books, 2015.
[43] Ajl, Max. A People’s Green New Deal. London: Pluto Press, 2021.
Hickel, Jason, Christian Dorninger, Hanspeter Wieland, and Intan Suwandi. (2022) “Imperialist appropriation in the world economy: Drain from the global South through unequal exchange, 1990–2015,” Global Environmental Change, 73.
[44] Ajl, Max. A People’s Green New Deal. London: Pluto Press, 2021.
Heron, Kai and Jodi Dean. (2020) “Revolution or Ruin,” e-flux Journal. Accessed 4 July 2024.
[45] Heron, Kai and Jodi Dean. (2020) “Revolution or Ruin,” e-flux Journal. Accessed 4 July 2024.
Seidman, Derek. (2019) “The Anti-Green New Deal Coalition.” LittleSis. Accessed 11 July 2024.
[47] Malatesta, Errico. (1899) “Towards Anarchism,” The Anarchist Library. Accessed 4 July 2024.
[49] Malm, Andreas. Corona, Climate, Chronic Emergency: War Communism in the Twenty-First Century. London: Verso, 2020.
Malm, Andreas. Corona, Climate, Chronic Emergency: War Communism in the Twenty-First Century. London: Verso, 2020.
[58] Heron, Kai and Jodi Dean. (2020) “Revolution or Ruin,” e-flux Journal. Accessed 4 July 2024.