> On Mar 15, 2026, at 18:11, David Walters via groups.io 
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Mark, I look forward to your response 

Well, it turned out to be a longer critique of the USFI Manifesto, 
https://links.org.au/manifesto-ecosocialist-revolution-break-capitalist-growth

USFI Manifesto

Marxmail and the Global Ecosocialist Network hosted a forum in 2023 called "A 
Roadmap to Ecosocialism." “Roadmap" seems to be a good metaphor for a 
transitional program to guide working-class struggle to a socialist 
destination. Transitional demands seek outcomes that make working people 
stronger and capital weaker. It is a program of class struggle: Winning relief 
for the masses while mobilizing them, building working-class organization, 
class consciousness, and growing the movement for future struggles. 
Unfortunately, we have had no success in forcing a reduction of greenhouse gas 
emissions. The “climate movement” lacks class struggle goals, strategies, 
tactics, and demands. These are needed to target capital, mobilize masses of 
people, maximizes our power against billionaires, their institutions, and their 
nation states while we win critical environmental reforms.

To this end, the USFI has published a “Manifesto for an ecosocialist revolution 
— Break with capitalist growth.” The Manifesto describes "an anticapitalist 
transitional program." Like Trotsky's Transitional Program of 1938, the 
Manifesto is a "bridge between present demands and the socialist programme of 
the revolution. It aspires to be a system of transitional demands, stemming 
from today’s conditions and from today’s consciousness of wide layers of the 
working class; the aim being to lead social struggles towards the conquest of 
power by the proletariat" [1]. 

Unlike Trotsky's Transitional Program, however, the Manifesto uses the 
"economic degrowth" concept. Marxist degrowth is a theoretical framework that 
some want to apply to environmental struggle [3], while others don't [4]. 
Marxist degrowth starts with Marx’s observation that capitalism requires 
continual growth in the surplus between what it costs to produce a commodity 
and the sale price of that commodity. Capitalist growth never stops or else the 
capitalist system stops. This entails unbounded growth in raw-material inputs 
and emission outputs. Among other results, it tells socialists that it is 
impossible for us to produce our way out of global warming and ecological 
destruction. The Manifesto presents a vision of a world based on this concept.

The Manifesto’s Vision

The Manifesto authors "... imagine what a good life would be for everyone, 
everywhere, while reducing the consumption of matter and energy, taking into 
account differentiated responsibilities, and therefore reducing material 
production. It is not a question of giving a ready-made model, but of daring to 
think of another world, a world that makes us want to fight to build it by 
breaking with capitalism and productivism." USFI’s vision is of plenty for all 
and justly shared in a socialist world of production for human need, protection 
of natural resources and social justice. 

Planned economies in the USSR and China, however, have produced mass famines 
and the destruction of what was once the world’s largest inland sea. To be 
honest, socialists can only prove that replacing capitalism is a NECESSARY 
condition to stop environmental destruction. We cannot prove that a socialist 
revolution is SUFFICIENT for meeting our ecological, social-justice, and other 
goals today and in the future. The Manifesto assumes too much about a future, 
post-capitalist world. And it decides too much for the future self-emancipated 
working classes. Rather than a program of struggle, the Manifesto presents a 
policy platform on such topics as nuclear power, open borders, reducing the 
purchasing power of the rich, and ending fast fashion. This enumeration 
obscures which of the demands are truly transitional and crucial to struggle.  

Transitional Policies versus Transitional Demands

For example, the Manifesto writes that ecosocialism "... raises the flag of 
extending rights and freedoms: right of association, of demonstration, right to 
strike; free election of parliamentary bodies in a multi-party system; a ban on 
private financing of political parties; legalization of popular initiative 
referendums; abolition of non-democratic institutions (such as an autonomous 
Central Bank); prohibition of private ownership of major means of 
communication; abolition of censorship; a fight against corruption; dissolution 
of militias serving leaders; respect for the rights and territories of 
indigenous communities and other oppressed peoples, etc." Some demands in this 
list are qualitatively different from the others.

Freedom of speech, assembly, and association are qualitatively different from 
other freedoms: Free speech is needed to win the other freedoms. Workers’ civil 
rights were won in past bourgeois democratic revolutions and struggles. These 
rights are foundational to working-class development. One of the earliest 
disagreements among US American communists, for example, was public versus 
secret operation. That matter was settled with the help of the early Comintern, 
which taught that working-class development depends on free speech and assembly 
for organization, education, economic actions, and mass political activity. The 
Manifesto, however, mixes that which is crucial for struggle with a platform of 
policies, many of which might be demands, but not necessarily transitional 
demands. And it is quite easy to get overwhelmed by the many demands, 
alternatives, and policies in the Manifesto. Its method takes the union of the 
“ecosocialist, antiracist, antimilitarist, anti-imperialist, anticolonialist 
and feminist” movements rather than their intersection, that which is common to 
them all. The importance of freedom of speech, assembly, and organization are 
common to all movements. So is global warming.

Global Warming 

The Manifesto calls to “Socialize energy and finance without compensation or 
buyback to get out of fossil fuels and nuclear power as quickly as possible.”  
This demand is one of about  twenty under the section “Main lines of an 
ecosocialist alternative to capitalist growth.” “Socializing energy” is about 
global warming, which is arguably the greatest contradiction faced by world 
capitalism today. Global warming shows that capitalism can do nothing else but 
produce its way to destruction of the planet for humans and for other species. 
This is one result of ecosocialist theory: According to Malm and Carton, true 
remediation of global warming entails stranding more than $12-15 trillion 
(thousand billion) in worldwide fossil fuel assets; that would cause a drastic 
drop in the valuation of those companies, their banks, and the financial 
industry. The authors note that the total value of the human beings freed by 
the Emancipation Proclamation was less than this (in present-day dollars). And 
so was the total value of capital expropriated by the Russian Revolution. Both 
resulted in devastating civil wars. This estimated value of oil and gas assets 
that need to be stranded to reduce greenhouse gas is multiple times more than 
capital destroyed worldwide in the 2008 crisis [5].

Global warming affects everyone, but the working class is footing the bill by 
paying hundreds of billions of dollars to cope with the dramatic increase in 
extreme weather disasters. The needed upgrades to utilities, transportation and 
communication infrastructure more than doubles the yearly cost. It is working 
people and poor people, moreover, who suffer the worst tribulations of global 
warming. All the while, fossil capital reaps historically-high profits.

Thus, a transitional demand to “socialize energy” is to demand that fossil-fuel 
companies pay for global warming. The IPCC was unable to get fossil 
capitalists, their bankers, and their governments to accept a worldwide 
reduction in fossil-fuel consumption. In addition to stranding trillions of 
dollars of assets, fossil capital will not accept the expropriation of their 
profits to pay for the damage they have done. They will not admit to doing any 
damage. Oil and gas companies have taken their governments to war, killed 
millions of people, overthrown governments and will certainly seek to destroy 
any movement of activists demanding their surplus. The struggle against fossil 
capital challenges the most powerful and murderous sector of the class. Their 
capitalization, by the way, is an order of magnitude larger than the nuclear 
industry. Regardless of how one feels about nuclear power, it is fossil capital 
that is directly to blame for global-warming damage. This damage accumulates 
each year. The global warming crisis is upon us, and people are searching for 
answers. This makes fossil capital a much better target than nuclear in a 
transitional ecosocialist program.

The International Nature of Transitional Demands Against Fossil Capital

The current struggle against fossil capital unfolds worldwide as local, 
regional, and sometimes indigenous efforts to stop specific fossil-fuel 
projects. In the US Pacific Northwest, for example, local and regional 
movements have stopped most of investments in coal, coal, gas, LNG, and oil 
terminal ports from trans-shipment to Asia. Similar efforts are being happening 
in various forms around the world. These local and regional efforts are up 
against global corporations.  Bringing together the nationwide and worldwide 
opposition to  fossil capital can better assemble the massive numbers of people 
to counter their power. We also must attract the fossil-fuel industry workforce 
and unions. National and global unification is the way we can focus and 
mobilize win against a powerful, centralized industry of just a couple of dozen 
major corporations.

Those of us in oil-producing nations are better positioned to fight fossil 
capital. We could raise, for example, the transitional demand to expropriate 
fossil profits and apply them to offset the effects of greenhouse-gas 
emissions. That would set the precedent of forcing companies to pay for the 
true costs of production. Victory would be a step towards the Manifesto’s 
demand to socialize energy. Its success would depend on how the unions and 
other industry workers support de-commodification of their products. It’s hard 
to imagine socializing an industry without the workers involved in running that 
industry. First and foremost, a socialized oil and gas industry would need to 
leave oil and gas reserves in the ground, and off the “asset” side of the 
corporate ledger, if we are to address the IPCC goals on reduction of 
greenhouse gas emissions. This is one, hypothetical approach to reduce 
commodity production without winning an ideological struggle against 
“productivism” first. 

“Productivism” and “Consumerism”

The Manifesto, claims “Satisfying real social needs while respecting ecological 
constraints is only possible by breaking with the productivist and consumerist 
logic of capitalism” [1].  If there is such a thing as “anti-productivist” 
struggle, however, it is among those who study and apply Marxist analysis to 
ecology. The Manifesto drags this by the hair into the arena of mass struggle. 
The Manifesto sees “anti-productivist struggles” where others might see efforts 
to protect water, assert indigenous land rights, stop LNG expansion, or to 
protect neighborhood home prices. Few argue today in favor of reducing overall 
productive activity. And they don’t need to: We want masses of working people 
to develop class consciousness, which comes from struggle, first and foremost.  
Concrete demands like “Take Big Oil’s Profits” are better suited to mass 
struggle than abstract concepts like “Break with Productivism.” The latter 
could be directed at almost anyone in a nation where the vast majority of 
people must work to survive. But the former target is very clear.

The call to “break with consumerism” is also poorly targeted and not a class 
struggle demand. Simon Pirani has noted  “...that it is social, economic and 
technological systems that  consume resources, that individuals do so through 
those systems and that there is no direct, arithmetic correlation between their 
consumption and environmental impacts”  [6].  Instead of focusing on the 
institutions, the Manifesto focus is on individual consumers: “First steps 
include drastically reducing the purchasing power of the rich, abandoning fast 
fashion, advertisement and luxury production/consumption (cruises, yachts and 
private jets or helicopters, space tourism, etc.), scaling down mass-produced 
meat and dairy and ending the accelerated obsolescence of products, extending 
their lifespan and facilitating their repair.” It’s not explained how we get 
the ultra rich to stop spending their money. But rather than telling working 
people what socialists want to take from them, we should present a plan to 
empower the working masses so they can decide instead of capital what is to be 
produced and how.

“Degrowth”

Working people generally understand that they need to be productive to get 
paid. They need to consume commodities in order to survive. And when the 
economy is in a recession or depression, it’s because the economy is no longer 
growing. As John Molyneux wrote, “Degrowth under capitalism is a disaster for 
working class people. It means, in reality, a recession with all the 
unemployment and suffering that involves. This ‘difficulty’ cannot be evaded by 
saying what we want is ‘democratically planned degrowth’ or some such. Planned 
degrowth under capitalism, with the capitalist class still in power, is 
impossible. And even small steps towards degrowth will hit working class 
people, however we dress it up.”

In many ways, USFI’s Manifesto “puts the cart before the horse.” It puts a 
struggle against capitalist lifestyles ahead of a struggle against the 
capitalist class. 


[1] 
https://links.org.au/manifesto-ecosocialist-revolution-break-capitalist-growth

[2] https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/tp/transprogram.pdf

[3] https://rupture.ie/articles/necessity-degrowth

[4] https://rupture.ie/articles/degrowth-a-response

[5] 
https://ivavalleybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/overshoot_Andreas-Malm-2024-.pdf

[5] https://www.climatecentral.org/climate-matters/billion-dollar-disasters-2025

[6] https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/25937








-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#41243): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/41243
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/118337963/21656
-=-=-
POSTING RULES & NOTES
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
#4 Do not exceed five posts a day.
-=-=-
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy 
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


Reply via email to