Eco-socialists criticise many within the Green movement for not being overtly anti-capitalist, for working within the existing capitalist,
statist system, for
voluntarism, or for reliance on technological fixes. The eco-socialist ideology is based on a critique of other forms of Green politics, including various forms of
green economics,
localism,
deep ecology,
bioregionalism and even some manifestations of radical green ideologies such as
eco-feminism and
social ecology. As Kovel puts it, eco-socialism differs from Green politics at the most fundamental level because the '
Four Pillars' of Green politics (and the 'Ten Key Values' of the
US Green Party) do not include the demand for the
emancipation of labour and the end of the separation between producers and the means of production. Many eco-socialists also oppose
Malthusianism and are alarmed by the gulf between Green politics in the Global North and the Global South.
Opposition to reformism and technologism Eco-socialists are highly critical of those Greens who favour "working within the system". While eco-socialists like Kovel recognise the ability of within-system approaches to raise awareness, and believe that "the struggle for an ecologically rational world must include a struggle for the state", he believes that the mainstream Green movement is too easily co-opted by the current powerful socio-political forces as it "passes from citizen-based
activism to ponderous bureaucracies scuffling for 'a seat at the table. For Kovel, capitalism is "happy to enlist" the Green movement for "convenience", "control over popular dissent" and "rationalization". He further attacks within-system green initiatives like
carbon trading, which he sees as a "capitalist shell game" that turns pollution "into a fresh source of profit".
Brian Tokar has further criticised carbon trading in this way, suggesting that it augments existing class inequality and gives the "largest 'players' ... substantial control over the whole 'game. In addition, Kovel criticises the "defeatism" of voluntarism in some local forms of environmentalism that do not connect: he suggests that they can be "drawn off into
individualism" or co-opted to the demands of capitalism, as in the case of certain
recycling projects, where citizens are "induced to provide free labor" to
waste management industries who are involved in the "capitalization of nature". He labels the notion on voluntarism "ecopolitics without struggle". Technological fixes to ecological problems are also rejected by eco-socialists.
Saral Sarkar has updated the thesis of 1970s '
limits to growth' to exemplify the limits of new capitalist technologies such as
hydrogen fuel cells, which require large amounts of energy to split molecules to obtain hydrogen. Furthermore, Kovel notes that "events in nature are reciprocal and multi-determined" and can therefore not be predictably "fixed"; socially, technologies cannot solve social problems because they are not "mechanical". He posits an eco-socialist analysis, developed from Marx, that patterns of production and social organisation are more important than the forms of technology used within a given configuration of society. Under capitalism, he suggests that technology "has been the
sine qua non of growth"; thus he believes that even in a world with hypothetical "free energy" the effect would be to lower the cost of automobile production, leading to the massive
overproduction of vehicles, "collapsing infrastructure", chronic resource depletion and the "paving over" of the "remainder of nature". In the modern world, Kovel considers the supposed efficiency of new
post-industrial commodities is a "plain illusion", as
miniaturized components involve many substances and are therefore non-recyclable (and, theoretically, only simple substances could be retrieved by burning out-of-date equipment, releasing more
pollutants). He is quick to warn "environmental
liberals" against over-selling the virtues of
renewable energies that cannot meet the mass energy consumption of the era; although he would still support renewable energy projects, he believes it is more important to restructure societies to reduce energy use before relying on renewable energy technologies alone.
Critique of green economics in
San Francisco on 15 March 2019, with a placard demanding economic action be taken in response to
climate change Eco-socialists have based their ideas for political strategy on a critique of several different trends in
green economics. At the most fundamental level, eco-socialists reject what Kovel calls "
ecological economics" or the "ecological wing of mainstream economics" for being "uninterested in social transformation". He further rejects the
Neo-Smithian school, who believe in Adam Smith's vision of "a capitalism of small producers, freely exchanging with each other", which is self-regulating and competitive. The school is represented by thinkers like
David Korten who believe in "regulated markets" checked by
government and
civil society but, for Kovel, they do not provide a critique of the expansive nature of capitalism away from localised production and ignore "questions of class,
gender or any other category of domination". Kovel also criticises their "fairy-tale" view of history, which refers to the abuse of "
natural capital" by the
materialism of the
Scientific Revolution, an assumption that, in Kovel's eyes, seems to suggest that "nature had toiled to put the gift of capital into human hands", rather than capitalism being a product of social relations in human history. Other forms of
community-based economics are also rejected by eco-socialists such as Kovel, including followers of
E. F. Schumacher and some members of the
cooperative movement, for advocating "no more than a very halting and isolated first step". He thinks that their principles are "only partially realizable within the institutions of cooperatives in capitalist society" because "the internal cooperation" of cooperatives is "forever hemmed in and compromised" by the need to expand value and compete within the market. Marx also believed that
cooperatives within capitalism make workers into "their own capitalist ... by enabling them to use the means of production for the employment of their own labour". For Kovel and other eco-socialists, community-based economics and Green localism are "a fantasy" because "strict localism belongs to the aboriginal stages of society" and would be an "ecological nightmare at present population levels" due to "heat losses from a multitude of dispersed sites, the squandering of scarce resources, the needless reproduction of effort, and cultural impoverishment". While he feels that small-scale production units are "an essential part of the path towards an ecological society", he sees them not as "an end in itself"; in his view, small enterprises can be either capitalist or socialist in their configuration and therefore must be "consistently anti-capitalist", through recognition and support of the emancipation of labour, and exist "in a dialectic with the whole of things", as human society will need large-scale projects, such as transport infrastructures. He highlights the work of
steady-state theorist Herman Daly, who exemplifies what eco-socialists see as the good and bad points of
ecological economics — while Daly offers a critique of capitalism and a desire for "workers ownership", he only believes in workers ownership "kept firmly within a capitalist market", ignoring the eco-socialist desire for struggle in the emancipation of labour and hoping that the interests of labour and management today can be improved so that they are "in harmony".
Critique of deep ecology Despite the inclusion of both in political factions like the
fundies of the
German Green Party, eco-socialists and deep ecologists hold markedly opposite views. Eco-socialists like Kovel have attacked deep ecology because, like other forms of Green politics and green economics, it features "virtuous souls" who have "no internal connection with the critique of capitalism and the emancipation of labor". Kovel is particularly scathing about deep ecology and its "fatuous pronouncement" that Green politics is "neither left nor right, but ahead", which for him ignores the notion that "that which does not confront the system becomes its instrument". Even more scathingly, Kovel suggests that in "its effort to decentre humanity within nature", deep ecologists can "go too far" and argue for the "splitting away of unwanted people", as evidenced by their desire to preserve
wilderness by removing the groups that have lived there "from
time immemorial". Kovel thinks that this lends legitimacy to "capitalist elites", like the
United States State Department and the
World Bank, who can make preservation of wilderness a part of their projects that "have added value as sites for
ecotourism" but remove people from their land. Between 1986 and 1996, Kovel notes that over three million people were displaced by "conservation projects"; in the making of the
national parks of the United States, three hundred
Shoshone Indians were killed in the development of
Yosemite. Kovel believes that deep ecology has affected the rest of the Green movement and led to calls for restrictions on
immigration, "often allying with reactionaries in a ... cryptically racist quest". Indeed, he finds traces of deep ecology in the "biological reduction" of
Nazism, an ideology many "organicist thinkers" have found appealing, including
Herbert Gruhl, a founder of the German Green Party (who subsequently left when it became more
left-wing) and originator of the phrase "neither left nor right, but ahead". Kovel warns that, while 'ecofascism' is confined to a narrow band of
far right intellectuals and "disaffected
white power skinheads" who involved themselves alongside
far left groups in the
anti-globalization movement, it may be "imposed as a
revolution from above to install an
authoritarian regime in order to preserve the main workings of the system" in times of crisis.
Critique of bioregionalism Bioregionalism, a philosophy developed by writers like
Kirkpatrick Sale who believe in the self-sufficiency of "appropriate bioregional boundaries" drawn up by inhabitants of "an area", has been thoroughly critiqued by Kovel, who fears that the "vagueness" of the area will lead to conflict and further boundaries between communities. While Sale cites the bioregional living of Native Americans, Kovel notes that such ideas are impossible to translate to populations of modern proportions, and evidences the fact that Native Americans held land in commons, rather than
private property – thus, for eco-socialists, bioregionalism provides no understanding of what is needed to transform society, and what the inevitable "response of the capitalist state" would be to people constructing bioregionalism. Kovel also attacks the problems of self-sufficiency. Where Sale believes in self-sufficient regions "each developing the energy of its peculiar ecology", such as "wood in the northwest [US]", Kovel asks "how on earth" these can be made sufficient for regional needs, and notes the environmental damage of converting
Seattle into a "forest-destroying and smoke-spewing wood-burning" city. Kovel also questions Sale's insistence on bioregions that do "not require connections with the outside, but within strict limits", and whether this precludes journeys to visit family members and other forms of travel.
Critique of variants of eco-feminism Like many variants of socialism and Green politics, eco-socialists recognise the importance of "the gendered bifurcation of nature" and support the emancipation of gender as it "is at the root of patriarchy and class". Nevertheless, while Kovel believes that "any path out of capitalism must also be eco-feminist", he criticises types of ecofeminism that are not anti-capitalist and can "essentialize women's closeness to nature and build from there, submerging history into nature", becoming more at place in the "comforts of the
New Age Growth Centre". These limitations, for Kovel, "keep ecofeminism from becoming a coherent social movement".
Critique of social ecology While having much in common with the radical tradition of
social ecology, eco-socialists still see themselves as distinct. Kovel believes this is because social ecologists see hierarchy "in-itself" as the cause of ecological destruction, whereas eco-socialists focus on the gender and class domination embodied in capitalism and recognise that forms of authority that are not "an expropriation of human power for ... self-aggrandizement", such as a student-teacher relationship that is "reciprocal and mutual", are beneficial. In practice, Kovel describes social ecology as continuing the anarchist tradition of
non-violent direct action, which is "necessary" but "not sufficient" because "it leaves unspoken the question of building an ecological society beyond capital". Furthermore, social ecologists and anarchists tend to focus on the state alone, rather than the class relations behind state domination (in the view of Marxists). Kovel fears that this is political, springing from historical hostility to Marxism among anarchists, and sectarianism, which he points out as a fault of the "brilliant" but "dogmatic" founder of social ecology,
Murray Bookchin.
Opposition to Malthusianism and neo-Malthusianism , 18th century economist whose ideas Malthusianism is named after While Malthusianism and eco-socialism overlap within the Green movement because both address
over-industrialism, and despite the fact that eco-socialists, like many within the Green movement, are described as
neo-Malthusian because of their criticism of economic growth, eco-socialists are opposed to Malthusianism. This divergence stems from the difference between Marxist and Malthusian examinations of social injustice – whereas Marx blames
inequality on class injustice,
Malthus argued that the working-class remained poor because of their greater
fertility and
birth rates. Neo-Malthusians have slightly modified this analysis by increasing their focus on
overconsumption – nonetheless, eco-socialists find this attention inadequate. They point to the fact that Malthus did not thoroughly examine ecology and that
Garrett Hardin, a key neo-Malthusian, suggested that further enclosed and privatised land, as opposed to commons, would solve the chief environmental problem, which Hardin labeled the '
tragedy of the commons'.
"Two varieties of environmentalism" Joan Martinez-Alier and
Ramachandra Guha attack the gulf between what they see as the two "varieties of environmentalism" – the environmentalism of the North, an aesthetic environmentalism that is the privilege of wealthy people who no longer have basic material concerns, and the environmentalism of the South, where people's local environment is a source of communal wealth and such issues are a question of survival. Nonetheless, other eco-socialists, such as Wall, have also pointed out that capitalism disproportionately affects the poorest in the Global North as well, leading to examples of resistance such as the environmental justice movement in the US and groups like MOVE. == Critique of other forms of socialism ==