Editor's note: The following is excerpted from a longer speech. Read the whole text here.
Socialism
Socialism has its material roots in the inability of capitalism to solve humanity's problems. Working people gravitate toward a radical critique of society out of necessity, out of a sense that the existing arrangements of society fail to fulfill their material and spiritual needs.
Thus, the gravitation towards socialism expressed in public opinion polls is closely connected to the end of an era in which U.S. capitalism was relatively stable and provided reasonable economic security.
Economic crises alone, however, do not prepare the soil for revolutionary change, though they're important. The soil is prepared via the cumulative impact of a series of crises (economic, political, social, cultural, and moral) taking place over time that together erode people's confidence in capitalism's capacity to meet humanity's needs and sustain life on our planet.
Our vision of socialism is a work in progress.
At the end of his life, Engels wrote, "To my mind, the 'so called socialist society' is not anything immutable. Like all social formations, it should be conceived in a state of flux and change."
We should take this to heart. Our socialist vision should have a contemporary and dynamic feel; it should be rooted in today's conditions and experience. It should be brought in line with current realities, trends, and sensibilities. It should reflect our values, traditions, and culture. It should be multi-racial, multi-national, and multi-lingual. It should welcome immigrants.
If it has an "old or foreign" feel, people will reject it.
In the 20th century the Soviet Union became the universal model of socialism. This universalization came at a price – it narrowed down our ability to think creatively and "outside the box."
The transition to socialism will mark an end to one stage of struggle and the beginning of a new one, distinguished a qualitative expansion and deepening of economic security, working class and people's democracy, egalitarian relations in every sphere of life, and human freedom in both a collective and individual sense.
I don't frame the matter in this way to replace the more traditional notion, in which the transition to socialism is distinguished by a revolutionary shift of class power from the capitalist class to the working class and democratic movement. What I want to do is to correct one-sidedness in our thinking.
A transfer in class power – which will more likely be a series of contested moments during which qualitative changes in power relations in favor of the working class and its allies take place rather than "the great revolutionary/to the barricades day" – is absolutely necessary, but it is not a sufficient condition for a successful transition to and consolidation of socialism.
In fact, a singular emphasis on the question of class power (a means), at the expense of social processes and social aims (economic improvement in people's lives, working class and people's democracy, rough equality, and freedom and solidarity), can lead – did lead – to distortions in socialist societies.
Socialism fully develops only to the degree that working people are empowered and participate in every aspect of society. Working class initiative, a sense of real ownership of social property, and a democratic and participatory socialist state are foundational aspects of socialism.
Lenin wrote,
"... socialism cannot be reduced to economics alone. A foundation – socialist production – is essential for the abolition of national oppression (in our context racial and national oppression), but this foundation must also carry a democratically organized state, a democratic army, etc. By transforming capitalism into socialism the proletariat (working class – SW) creates the possibility of abolishing national oppression; the possibility becomes reality "only" – "only!" – with the establishment of full democracy in all spheres."
Note the weight that Lenin attaches to democracy and working class initiative. Do we share his view? To a degree, but I would argue that re-centering working class and people's initiative, democracy, and needs at the core of our socialist vision is a necessary corrective.
While the political leadership of communist, socialist and left parties and social movements is indispensable, in the past, our understanding of our leading role came close to substituting ourselves for the wide-ranging participation and leadership of masses of people and for a vibrant public space in which these same people gather, compare ideas, and take action.
The struggle for socialism will bring a broad and diverse coalition with varied outlooks and interests into motion. And while we fight for the leadership of the multi-racial, multi-national working class in this coalition and for its deep imprint on the political process, we also combine that with the search for broad strategic and tactical alliances. At times this dual task will cause tensions, sometimes strongly felt ones, but the resolution of these tensions is condition for radical change.
Finally, the socialist economy of the 21st century should give priority to sustainability, not growth without limits. Socialist production can't be narrowly focused on inputs and outputs, nor should purely quantitative criteria be used to measure efficiency and determine economic costs. New socialist production (and consumption) models are imperative. Both must economize on natural resources and protect the planet and its various ecological systems. The future of living things that inhabit this earth will depend on it.
Environment
That said, we cannot wait for socialism to address the dangers of climate change and environmental degradation. That must be done now. We are approaching tipping points that if reached will give global warming a momentum that human actions will have little or no control over.
The planet is now warmer than it has been since the end of the last glacial age roughly 12,000 years ago, and if this pattern continues it will result in catastrophe for humanity. Both governments and peoples must take emergency measures now or the planet's future is in doubt. It is easy to make a case that climate change is the preeminent challenge to humankind in the 21st century.
Global warming is not new. In 1750, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere – the main cause of the rise in global temperatures – measured 280 molecules of carbon dioxide for every one million molecules in the air. Today, it is 387 parts per million (ppm), largely because of industrialization, urbanization and consumerism – all of which were cradled and shaped by capitalism.
The quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increased gradually since 1750, but it spiked upward in recent decades as carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases poured into the atmosphere at a feverish pace as a result of "human forcing," which are human activities that "affect the energy balance and temperature of the Earth," as opposed to natural forcing (volcanoes, change in the sun's radiation, etc,)
At one time the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) believed that carbon dioxide could rise to 450 ppm in the atmosphere (roughly increasing average global temperature by 2 degrees Celsius) without doing significant harm. New research suggests that this is far too optimistic. A rise of carbon dioxide to 350 ppm in the atmosphere brings us into the danger zone. But, as mentioned, we are already at 387 ppm.
The old calculation failed to take account of amplifying feedback factors. An increase in the earth's temperature, for example, causes the melting of ice and snow, which in turn results in less reflection of sunlight back into space and, instead, its absorption by the land and ocean and, consequently a further rise in the average global temperature.
This new scientific finding, says climate scientist James Hansan, makes it imperative to "immediately recognize the need to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide to 350 ppm in order to avoid disasters for coming generations."
If we continue to produce and consume as we have over decades (business as usual), the Earth will be warmer than it has been since 3 million years ago.
So what's the big deal? The great ice sheets will melt and eventually sea levels could rise as much as 80 feet. The frozen northern tundra will thaw and release tons of methane into the atmosphere. Whole ecological systems will collapse and species, unable to migrate or adapt to new conditions fast enough, will become extinct. Violent storms will become commonplace. Water vapor (a major cause climate change feedback) will increase. And more.
At some point, human intervention will be unable to slow down and stop this process. Obviously civilization as we know it will change drastically.
While responsibility rests on every nation, for each contributes to the planet's warning, it doesn't rest equally. The main polluters of the atmosphere as well as the land and water are the core capitalist countries.
China issues more carbon into the atmosphere now in absolute numbers. But when measured on a per capita basis the United States is still the main culprit.
Moreover, when considered as a cumulative process (which most people fail to consider) over nearly three centuries, the leading polluters are the United Kingdom and the United States.
These findings argue for an accelerated transition to new energy sources and sustainable development. We could begin with an immediate carbon tax that would penalize those with the largest carbon footprint – big corporations – while also making a case for the elimination of coal production and expansion of alternative energy sources.
More fundamentally, global warming and the various forms of environmental degradation are a compelling argument for the new urgency of socialism – a society that privileges people and nature.
