Is Socialism Ecologically Friendly?

There is an odd correlation in some of the public square between socialism and the ecological movement. The so called “Green New Deal” is a major example of this, where a proposal has been created to install socialism in the United States for the sake of the environment. This belief in the environmental friendliness of socialism didn’t begin with thoughts of the recent proposals, but the logical connection between the two is dubious, at best.

The first time I came across the argument that socialism was the best solution to the environment was in Naomi Klein’s popular book, This Changes Everything. It was a shoddy book by an activist who writes journalistically, but given the popularity of Klein’s sales and the increasing popularity of the combination of economic control and ecology she proposes, it seems to resonate with a number of people.

Among Klein’s basic proposals is a Universal Basic Income (UBI), which has supporters on both among free market advocates and those who desire more centralized economic control. She claims UBI “makes it possible for workers to say no to dirty energy jobs but also because the very process of arguing for a universal social safety net opens up a space for a full-throated debate about values.” (Klein, 2014: 461) Given that in her recent book, On Fire, Klein offers a definition of “green jobs” that include daycare workers, it isn’t clear exactly what a “dirty energy job” is and why it should be resisted. (Klein, 2019: 268)

But the deeper issue is that there is often no clear connection between socialism and improving the environment, the very grounds on which the so-called Green New Deal is supposed to stand.

As the Washington Post revealed in this profile of Saikat Chakrabarti, who has been one of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s political handlers, the so-called Green New Deal was originally not about the environment, but about imposing socialism on society:

Chakrabarti had an unexpected disclosure. “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal,” he said, “is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.” Ricketts greeted this startling notion with an attentive poker face. “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti continued. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”

This was readily apparent to many who read the summary of the so-called Green New Deal proposal and noted that it took a great deal of time to get to anything that was supposed to benefit the ecosystem.

The conflation of radical redistribution with eco-friendly is not unique to political formulations of ecology, though. In his book, Religion and Ecology: Developing a Planetary Ethic, queer-theorist Whitney Bauman proposes (1) free higher education (and transferring student loan debt to the U.S. government), (2) global, universal health care, and (3) an increase in leisure time as key remedies for environmental ills, the method for which is not clearly defined. (Bauman, 2014:  147–148) The idea is to get people disengaged from economic activity so they take on the attitudes of “polytheistic nomadism” and have space to imagine a world that is truly environmentally friendly.

The message seems to be that by granting economic power to a central elite––an oligarchy that we will democratically choose, of course––people will stop working so hard and have time to consider the lilies.

There is no question that this sounds terrifically appealing on a Friday afternoon after a long week of work. And, of course, there is some helpful truth within the ideas, which allows people to focus on the legitimate good(s) proposed without considering the damage it would take to get there or what it would do to society.

As a Christian and a non-libertarian advocate for a Free Market economic condition, I believe that debt from higher education (and a whole bunch of other consumer sources) is too high, that we need to reevaluate and structurally improve our health care system at many levels, and that the harried pace of modern life are damaging to the human psyche. I am also of the opinion that we need to think carefully about our individual and corporate impact on the environment and continue to make adjustments at all levels.

However, I can’t support proposals like the so-called Green New Deal because of some of the fundamental flaws in the worldview.

Can Socialism Self-Regulate?

More significantly, I cannot support movement toward socialism on environmental grounds, because centralized control of the economy has not consistently led to a positive outcome for the environment. For the sake of this discussion, I will accept the traditional definition of socialism, which is that the government owns (or substantially controls) the means of production. (There are competing and historically naïve definitions in existence, so such a definition is warranted.)

At a fundamental level, it seems illogical that central planners will self-police environmental issues to the degree that advocates of socialism hope. When the local, state, and federal government are independent entities, they have both standing and incentive to enforce environmental regulations and seek damages from corporate entities that pollute. However, once the various levels of government and production are simply branches of the same massive entity, it is not clear they will have the political will to essentially self-enforce regulations.

Of course, the counter argument is that it isn’t a totalitarian socialism that is being proposed but a “democratic” socialism. However, when a few thousand people are being affected by a chemical spill for the benefit of the rest of the population, it doesn’t take too long to imagine how majoritarian democracy could choose to neglect that tiny minority. It also becomes less and less clear how people will be able to vote in their long-term best interests when their immediate good in regulated by the tiny minority in power, but that is a discussion for another day. It might be more helpful to look at historical examples to see how ecological health has fared under socialist economies.

Historic Impact of Socialism on the Environment

Historically speaking, socialistic systems have not been particularly good for the environment. In his book, The Art of the Impossible, Vaclav Havel describes the environmental blight caused by socialism the former Czechoslovakia. Similarly, historically, the levels of pollution in East Germany were several times that in West Germany during the reign of socialism. Then, you have the ongoing environmental blight and gross pollution present in today’s China, which has made some capitalistic reforms, but is still recovering from their economic communism. During Moa Zedong’s rule, his government created a famine by exterminating sparrows because he thought them to be pests, thus disrupting the ecosystem. The list can go on significantly and include the ongoing environmental meltdown in Venezuela. It is also worth noting that the so-called “good” socialism of the Scandinavian countries is rated near the bottom of the Sustainable Development Index. (For the record, these countries are not socialistic.)

But, some might argue, communism isn’t real socialism and what the so-called Green New Deal is proposing will be environmentally better. First, since the so-called Green New Deal is being compared favorably to FDR’s New Deal of the early 20th century, we can consider the impact that farm subsidies have had on the environment. One of the chief concerns about farming is topsoil depletion, which is significantly accelerated due to monoculture. The rise of agribusiness and the propensity toward monoculture of crops have been enabled and accelerated by FDR’s Agricultural Adjustment Act, which was a precursor to the modern farm bills. The industrialization of farming has only accelerated topsoil depletion. It is unclear that any new proposals from the so-called Green New Deal programs will do much better.

Conclusion

While there is a groundswell movement on the political left to link the concentration of economic power in the Federal government and environmental health, it is unclear that such a movement will have a positive outcome for the environment. In fact, there is good historical evidence that exactly the opposite will occur. We certainly need economic reform, but it might be better to think local, compassionate, and personal instead of looking to socialism.

On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal - A Review

In February 2019, a member of the U. S. House of Representatives released a bold new plan to take over the U. S. economy in the name of “climate justice.” Modeled after, and of greater scope than, FDR’s New Deal plan, the proposal was called “The Green New Deal.”

The proposal obviously caused a big stir, not least because the first released edition of the FAQs for the proposal including information about the difficulty of eliminating “farting cows.” After the online mockery of some of those more drastic proposals ramped up, the claim was made that this was an early draft and not the final version. An edited version with more professional prose was later released, but thankfully, the original version was not memory holed (not yet anyway).

The elimination of farting cows is funny, but more concerning is the call by to “retrofit every building in America,” among other things. This shows the sheer scope of the economic control desired by proponents of the so-called Green New Deal: They want the ability to remodel your home, modify your church, and rebuild your business after their own desire.

This sounds alarmist. To a degree it is, but the actual claims of proponents of the so-called Green New Deal make it clear than nothing but a total transformation of every aspect of the economy and social life in our country will satisfy them. Naomi Klein, an activist who has written journalistically in favor of socialism and the environment, released a book in late 2019, which both supports the Green New Deal program and illuminates the level of control desired.

Klein’s Case

On Fire claims to present The Burning Case for a Green New Deal according to the subtitle. Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of this book is that it fails to make a case. For those readers who are deeply concerned about environment and the impact of global warming, but also curious as to why granting total control of the economy to socialists would be beneficial, will find that this book under-delivers on its basic claims.

To be fair, this volume is a collection of slightly revised opinion pieces (some were published as journalism) and political speeches that Klein has previously published in other outlets since 2010. There is little cogency in the argument, and, truthfully, little more than assertion throughout. This is a book that is more likely to galvanize the will of the already convinced than it is to convince anyone to jump on the bandwagon. For a book that claims to make a case for a sweeping and potentially devastating economic revolution (if historic examples of socialism are any indication), there is very little research and very few arguments made. A topic this important deserves better work.

Klein is a rabid proponent of socialism, as evidenced by her earlier published works. This book does not advance significantly from her published arguments in This Changes Everything.

What is clearer in On Fire is that Klein and other proponents of the so-called Green New Deal are not merely shooting for economic control, but for a total ideological overhaul of the world’s societies. She laments the divisions in the world that have prevented the hegemony of climate activists and argues that “a Green New Deal could instill a sense of collective, higher purpose.” (26) This plan requires less journalism and more activism on the part of the media (243–44).

But, more insidiously, it requires all streams of communication to become focused on presenting this controlled narrative: Just as in the New Deal era when “Playwrights, photographers, muralists, and novelists were all part of telling the story of what was possible. For the Green New Deal to succeed, we, too, will need the skills and expertise of many different kinds of storytellers: Artists, psychologists, faith leaders, historians, and more.” (271)

This might seem less difficult, if Klein did not also actively support the intimation by revisionist Roman Catholic, Sean McDonough in his suggestion that, “Scripture is ever evolving, and should be interpreted in historical context. If Genesis needs a prequel, that’s not such a big deal. Indeed, I get the distinct sense that he’d be happy to be part of the drafting committee.” (145)

Any societal narrative must be widely repeated if there is to be coherence. Many of the failures in American society to date have been exacerbated by a lost common narrative. However, it seems a bit insidious to simultaneously propose control of the economy from the top and working to control the messaging. History shows that such a central focus on ideology is damaging to the willing and unwilling subjects of those who have gained such total control. What Klein describes is forceful propaganda designed to choke out opposition.

Although this sounds like an exaggeration, it is fairly clear the book is not making an argument in good faith. This is base-energizing propaganda designed to demonize any opposition to their control. In reflecting on Trump’s victory in the 2016 election, Klein notes,

“Never, ever underestimate the power of hate. Never underestimate the power of direct appeals to power over “the other”––the migrant, the Muslim, black people, women. Especially during times of economic hardship. Because when large numbers of white men find themselves frightened and insecure, and those men were raised in a social system built on elevating their humanity over all these others’, a lot of them get mad. And there is nothing wrong in itself with being mad––there’s a lot to be mad about.” (191)

This sort of “us vs. them” argument is written throughout the book. Often this is in the explicitly in the language of intersectionality, which in its more invidious forms privileges certain theories over others simply because of the personal characteristics of the individual or group that seems to support the theory.

At one point, Klein quips, “To change everything, it takes everyone.” (202) But clearly, Klein doesn’t include anyone who has even minimal disagreement with her in any area. If the goal were to improve the quality of the environment, there might be aspects of the Green New Deal to discuss, but this is a call for granting total control to an ideologically driven group who see their theories as a moral imperative.

Klein makes this clear, she notes, “Winning is a moral imperative. The stakes are too high, and time is too short, to settle for anything less.” (242) Of course, winning involves implementing the plan of imposing the Green New Deal through legislation. Klein writes,

“The plan is pretty straightforward: elect a strong supporter of the Green New Deal in the Democratic primaries; take the White House, the House, and the Senate in 2020; and start rolling out on day one of the new administration (the way FDR did with the original New Deal in his famous ‘first 100 days,’ when the newly elected president pushed fifteen major bills through Congress.)” (31)

All we need is single party control of the entire government to ensure that what promises to be a reasonable, balanced legislation through. Actually, Klein notes that understanding the implications of proposed policy is not a significant point of concern. She argues, “we don’t need to figure out every detail before we begin. . . What matters is that we begin the process right away.” (39) Do something, even if you don’t know who it is going to harm or how much.

But this is where the odd contradiction comes in because while arguing for total control of the centralized government and unilaterally imposing sweeping legislation, she also states that we should avoid “highly centralized, top-down transformations.” This is because,

“If we defer to central governments in that way [like wartime mobilizations] in the face of the climate crisis, we should expect highly corrupt measures that further concentrate power and wealth in the hands of a few big players, not to mention systematic attacks on human rights . . .” (36)

She lays these abuses at the feet of capitalism, of course, but what she describes sounds like the effects of single party control in socialist systems like Venezuela and the former Soviet bloc countries. Notably, socialist countries are not well known for their respect of human rights, peaceful transfer of power, or, oddly, for their positive record on the environment.

Klein casually admits to the environmental abuses of historical socialistic implementations:

“But we have to be honest that autocratic industrial socialism has also been a disaster for the environment, as evidenced most dramatically by the fact that carbon emissions briefly plummeted when the economies of the former Soviet Union collapsed in the early 1990s. And Venezuela’s petro-populism is a reminder that there is nothing inherently green about self-defined socialism.” (251)

Apparently, the control imposed by environmentally engaged socialists in upending all of society will be much gentler than previous versions of single party, socialist rule.

Of course, that claim doesn’t mesh with Klein’s claim that,

“Most fundamentally, any credible Green New Deal needs a concrete plan for ensuring that the salaries from all the good green jobs it creates aren’t immediately poured into high-consumer lifestyles that inadvertently end up increasing emissions––a scenario where everyone has a good job and lots of disposable income and it all gets spent on throwaway crap from China destined for the landfill.” (284)

I’m trying to find a way that such total control of everyone’s individual economic choices could be managed apart from a strenuous totalitarianism, but I haven’t been able to imagine one.

Conclusion

To be fair to Klein, I’m a fan of the free market in addition to being deeply concerned about the environment. I picked up the book with the expectation of disagreement. I have previously reviewed her book, This Changes Everything, which makes the basic assertion that climate change is bad, therefore socialism is needed. I didn’t like that book, but I’ve softened in my views in some ways, matured in others, and was hopeful that perhaps she had a published a book with a better argument. I remain disappointed.

Though I have become less of a libertarian, Klein has become much more extreme. If anything, though the quality of thought has not changed, the content is more disturbing because Klein presents a direct hostility to those who think differently. In the previous book she merely ignores opposing views; in the present book she is outright nasty, including likening President Trump (of whom I’m no fan) to a “fatberg.” Mildly humorous, but rather atypical in a book by a careful thinker.

This sounds somewhat extreme, but given the unfettered ideology with no clear limits on power, a sense of unassailable moral high-ground, no clearly defined goal (lower global temperature is rather open-ended in my opinion), and a belief that everyone who disagrees is a mortal enemy in a battle over an existential crisis does not lead me to believe Klein and those who advocate for the Green New Deal are prepared, if they ever gain power, to accept losers without retribution.

Klein is correct, “To change everything, it takes everyone.” That leads me to wonder what will happen to those who don’t agree with her proposed changes.

On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal

By Naomi Klein

Buy on Amazon

NOTE: I received a gratis copy of this volume with no expectation of a positive review.