Fred Block / Translated by Zhang Yingkui et al.: Nine Theses on 21st-Century Socialism
In his book How to Be an Anticapitalist in the 21st Century, Erik Olin Wright does not pose the question of "what kind of society a socialist society might be." He argues that as the power of the people seeps into the rule of the capitalist class, capitalism and socialism may coexist for a period of time. However, we can say with certainty that Wright’s work provides a sufficiently clear vision of a future socialist society. Had Wright lived, he might not have agreed with everything I am about to discuss, but I believe my theses are guided by his theoretical perspectives on capitalism and socialism.
Wright’s concept of eroding capitalist power suggests that a broad and powerful political alliance would accomplish the practical task of eroding capitalism in several ways: by "taming" capitalism through stricter regulation, escaping capitalism by creating alternative organizations (such as worker cooperatives), resisting capitalism through struggles on the shop floor and in the community, and dismantling capitalism by forcefully pushing for significant structural reforms.
Wright was keenly aware that over the past 40 years, the Left—both in the United States and globally—has suffered severe defeats. He acknowledged that the distribution of income and wealth has become increasingly unequal; the global climate crisis has grown more severe; the far-right openly supports racism and misogyny; and in an era where the political spending of billionaires has reached sea-sickening levels and potential authoritarians are on the rise, defending democratic institutions and practices has become increasingly difficult.
At the same time, Wright saw that these "morbid symptoms" [1] were triggering more powerful protest movements. These movements possess the potential to integrate a broader population rebelling against the escalating climate crisis, autocracy, and an economic system where profits are monopolized by a small circle of the wealthy. Wright was encouraged by movements such as Occupy Wall Street, the 2011 Egyptian Revolution, and similar mass protests elsewhere, as well as by the immense energy embodied in Bernie Sanders' 2016 presidential campaign. In short, he believed it was possible to develop broader, more organized, and more enduring popular movements to challenge the rule of capitalism.
However, he also admitted that such movements must find a way to bridge the historical tension between two types of political actors. On one side are the pragmatic reformers, primarily motivated by the desire to solve several imminent problems, such as the climate crisis and the systemic exclusion and marginalization of certain key groups. On the other side are the heirs of the revolutionary tradition, who believe that unless there is a fundamental transformation of the existing order, anything done is an unacceptable compromise with a morally illegitimate system.
Historically, the Left has been most successful when it could build a loose alliance between these two distinct political factions. Without such an alliance, the Left continually loses ground, ceding it to the Right. I believe Wright’s intention in his "Real Utopias Project" was to elaborate a future vision acceptable to both groups. On one hand, he told pragmatic reformers that reforms failing to erode capitalist power would eventually be clawed back and reversed—much like many reforms of Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. On the other hand, he told proponents of radical change to take the long view and plan for the long term, because the existing order cannot be magically transformed overnight; yet, with sufficient effort and patience, a completely different new society can be built over time.
In a sense, Wright was answering the question posed by Ira Katznelson in one of his essays: "Is liberal socialism possible?" Wright’s answer was yes. He believed it was possible to construct a liberal socialist order that protects individual liberty while deepening democratic self-governance. But to give an affirmative answer, Wright had to reimagine socialism within the Marxist tradition in a way that is often viewed as "socialist" [2].
This is the implicit part of Wright’s proposition, which I will attempt to make explicit by elaborating on nine theses from his work. My goal is not to describe socialism as some ideal end-point of history, but rather to articulate socialism as a set of procedures and institutional arrangements that open a path toward creating a society fundamentally more democratic, just, and sustainable than the existing order. I hope both pragmatic reformers and radical revolutionaries can see the value inherent in these conceptions.
Like Wright’s work, much of the following discussion is rooted in the politics of the United States and Western Europe, but I hope these discussions can be linked to social transformation projects in other parts of the world. In short, the construction of socialism must be a global project. The assumption here is that the process of socialist renewal is uneven: some countries or regions will be in the lead, while others lag behind. The leading countries or regions have a responsibility to challenge global structures designed to reproduce capitalist class power. When that happens, they will open up broader space for successful struggles in other regions.
In essence, describing socialism through nine theses is arbitrary; there could just as well be 11 or 15. The first four theses pertain to basic design principles, intended to distinguish the 21st-century vision of socialism from the way the concept was constructed in the traditional Marxist lineage. The next four theses are dedicated to describing how a more socialist economic system would function. The final thesis points out that the demand for a Global Green New Deal is a path through which socialists can and should intervene in current politics.
I. If socialism can be realized, it will be a "real" good society
Wright’s approach in constructing the "Real Utopias Project" was always a double-edged sword. On one hand, he responded to the hegemony of market fundamentalism, with its notorious claim that "there is no alternative" (TINA). Wright sought to clarify that, in fact, many alternatives exist—some of which are already actual institutions or practices in contemporary society. The examples he admired included participatory budgeting, Wikipedia, and public libraries.
On the other hand, Wright also attacked the "unreal utopias" of some on the Left. These leftists imagined that overthrowing the capitalist system would quickly lead to a society free from all forms of oppression and coercion. Although Wright believed in the plasticity of human nature, he was highly skeptical that a "socialist new person" would overnight discard egoism, in-group preferences, or the impulse to coerce others. Instead, he argued that racism, sexism, and other types of domination would continue to exist, requiring ongoing initiatives to challenge these illegitimate hierarchies. Furthermore, he believed that the democratization of society would not cause those who use power to suppress others to disappear; rather, expanding the scope of democracy is more conducive to constraining and controlling such individuals.
In short, the arrival of socialism is not the "end of history." Rather, it is a moment when humanity can gain greater capacity to use collective power to shape society. However, this does not guarantee that new forms of domination will not emerge. Private ownership of property is only one of many foundations for an unjust society; even if private property were completely abolished, we would still need to remain vigilant against the emergence of new forms of domination and oppression. Strong democratic institutions and a firm public belief in democratic norms are the best mechanisms for maintaining effective vigilance.
The transition to socialism is not only a long process in most regions but will necessarily play out unevenly across the globe, just as the expansion of democratic institutions has. However, the pace of global transformation can be accelerated by changing the rules and institutions of global economic governance. As multiple countries move toward socialism at the national level, they will drive global change. Existing rules and institutions have been dedicated to strengthening capitalist rule, obstructing any reforms that would shift the balance of power away from the propertied classes by supporting austerity and facilitating capital flight. But strategic reforms at the global level can strengthen the power of socialist movements and prevent capital flight from being a tool to sabotage the socialist process. Such a shift at the global level will certainly happen gradually, but as socialist forces grow, global change will make it easier to build strong socialist movements in those regions that initially lagged behind.
Finally, the purpose of this text is not to describe an ideal socialist society, but to explain the basic principles that serve as the foundation for a program of social transformation. Our assumption is that designing the political and economic institutions for a mature socialist society will require decades of experimentation and research. These theses should be understood as preliminary designer sketches rather than detailed blueprints that can be handed over to a builder.
II. Socialism will possess multiple forms of ownership
Historically, our understanding of socialism has often been unitary: the abolition of private property and its replacement by some form of collective ownership of the means of production. In some socialist states, ownership resided with the state; in others, it resided with the workers. But the common idea between them was that there would be one dominant form of ownership for the essential assets upon which the whole of society depends. This conception of unitary ownership arose from the need to combat the irrationality of capitalism. In capitalist societies, market actors overestimate potential demand for their products, then swing to the other extreme; thus, the fragmentation of ownership creates the economic cycle of boom and bust. Consequently, it was recognized that to advance a plan capable of balancing production and consumption, the form of ownership of the means of production must be unitary.
The problem is that unitary ownership arrangements tend to lead to a concentration of power, and concentrated power is difficult to bring under democratic control. When the state manages the means of production, the concentration of power is obvious, as immense power aggregates in the hands of top economic planners. However, even in a highly decentralized system where employees own and control all significant enterprises, concentrations of power are likely to emerge in the administrative agencies responsible for allocating investment capital to these firms. When these agencies choose to deny funding to a worker-owned enterprise, that choice may effectively kill the enterprise.
Adopting multiple forms of ownership helps prevent the concentration of power and can avoid the periodic cycles of boom and bust. First, much of the "irrational exuberance" that creates economic booms is triggered by speculative behavior in financial markets; by replacing for-profit financial institutions with non-profit ones and implementing tax systems that reduce speculative profits, it is possible to curb such speculation. Second, governments possess many powerful means to suppress economic fluctuations—by raising or lowering their own spending and by increasing or decreasing the supply of credit to households and different types of businesses. Because these tools are used at the macro level, they are more susceptible to democratic control.
When we break free from the unitary conception of ownership, we can imagine various types of ownership coexisting within the same socialist economic system. This might be a mixed economy including state-owned enterprises, worker-owned enterprises, non-profit enterprises, small private businesses, and large joint-stock companies with representatives for employees, local communities, and shareholders. We can conduct a long-term experiment to observe which types of firms operate best in different sectors of the economy. When we can prove that a specific type of firm has significant advantages in providing a particular good or service, we can amend laws to support that type of firm in that specific field.
However, all such firms will be subject to regulations and systems that restrict various types of destructive behavior, including the mistreatment of laborers, price manipulation, bribery, environmental destruction, and the deception of consumers. For for-profit firms, regardless of size, the relevant restrictions will be extremely stringent. Laws and regulations will mandate the restructuring of for-profit firms that engage in illegal operations or go bankrupt, allowing them to operate under different forms of ownership.
Across all these diverse organizational forms, public policy will provide support for the democratization of the workplace, the improvement of employee skills, and the reduction of labor hours for full-time work. In cases where workplace upgrading cannot be achieved through technology or the adjustment of the division of labor (such as certain types of agricultural labor or cleaning work), employees will receive additional compensation or receive full-time pay for shorter working hours.
Logically, socialism with diverse forms of ownership is consistent with Wright's [3] view on eroding capitalism. For-profit firms will continue to exist, but they will gradually move away from the singular pursuit of profit maximization. On the one hand, when the expansion of representation on boards of directors includes employees and community members, firms will establish longer investment horizons and strive to avoid producing social externalities. On the other hand, more effective regulation will require firms to pay closer attention to issues such as employee welfare and environmental sustainability.
At the same time, because many products and services will be provided by employee cooperatives, non-profit organizations, and public institutions, for-profit firms will lose their dominant position in the economic system. As the normal work week and work year gradually decrease, the scope of voluntary labor will also expand, allowing a portion of care work to return to the family and community—though it was never envisioned who would undertake this work, it nevertheless fell upon women, or families were forced to cope on their own.
III. Socialism will possess diverse forms of participatory institutions
According to Wright's vision, a socialist society will be committed to realizing the promise of liberal democracy—a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. This means that some parliamentary democratic institutions can be retained, including competitive elections, one person, one vote, the separation of powers, and constitutional or supreme courts to adjudicate disputes. However, as a way to promote the more effective operation of parliaments, participatory democratic institutions will also be greatly expanded. This participatory system will operate in numerous workplaces, local communities, sub-national levels, and even within national administrative agencies.
First, however, major transformations are required to overcome the common defects of liberal democracy. Most crucially, a set of new regulations must be introduced that can strictly limit the role of money in government elections at all levels. One possible mechanism that could both promote competition in the electoral field and limit the influence of large donations on elections is a voucher program. This program would provide electoral vouchers to all citizens, which candidates could use to conduct campaign activities and gain eligibility for free access to mass media.
Similarly, common defects in existing Western democratic systems will be corrected. In elections, various barriers to participation will be removed; proportional representation may replace "winner-take-all" electoral systems; and the US Congress will be restructured—abolishing or reforming the US Senate to align it with the principle of "one person, one vote." Central banks will be subordinated to parliamentary and executive bodies, assuming the responsibility for maintaining high levels of employment.
However, the substantial expansion of participatory democracy is also necessary. Wright wrote extensively on the issue of "empowered participatory governance," suggesting the establishment of new agencies and institutions to shift policymaking into such participatory bodies. Employee councils—independent of ownership structures—will exist in most workplaces and will exert significant influence on issues of work organization or corporate investment and production decisions. Similar participatory institutions will exist at the community and city levels, with the capacity to consult with local governments on decision-making regarding infrastructure and service provision.
These participatory institutions will also function as mechanisms for political education. Many citizens will learn basic political skills within these institutions and acquire the discernment to evaluate political operations. In political arenas at all levels—local, sub-national, national, and supra-national—where major changes can be effectively won, the nature of politics will begin to transform. Consequently, the current distrust of the political class and low participation rates will give way to significantly increased participation, and the vast chasm between ordinary people and the political class will gradually disappear.
In the future, there will still be different political parties and organizations advocating for different paths forward. Those who advocate for the restoration of traditional capitalism will have the right to present their views, but if they no longer possess a massive wealth advantage, they will likely be marginalized. Of course, the danger will always exist that economic hardship or unforeseen challenges might allow those who plot to obstruct socialist progress to gain power. The only way to prevent this is to ensure the public recognizes the dangers of restoring the old rule and long-term inequality.
IV. Socialism pursues complex equality
Historically, socialists envisioned a form of equality in which everyone would receive roughly the same economic benefits and services. Michael Walzer [4] called this form of equality "simple equality." However, socialism is built upon the realization that people are different and that different people desire different things. Clearly, not every human desire can be satisfied; those who dream of dominating others will be disappointed. But in a socialist society, people's lifestyles, life goals, and forms of consumption will be diverse.
Walzer further argued that a future society should be able to accommodate both this diversity and the goal of equality. His solution was to conceptualize the goal as "complex equality." Society can be divided into independent spheres with different rewards—money, political power, healthcare, education, social status, and respect for individual creativity. Walzer's vision is that a society can achieve complex equality by establishing rules to prevent an individual's ability to trade one reward for another.
For example, regardless of how much money or political power people possess, they can only receive the same medical care. Similarly, regardless of the parents' status in society, all children will have the same educational opportunities; their ability to receive a better education will depend entirely on their individual talent and work ethic. Strict campaign finance rules will prevent those with more money from gaining greater political influence than others, and various anti-corruption measures will prevent those holding political office from using their political power in exchange for other rewards.
In short, complex equality means that those whose primary desire is to accumulate wealth or large quantities of material products will have certain opportunities to satisfy their desires, but their ability to pass privileges or wealth to their children will be strictly limited. Most importantly, their ability to use wealth to dominate others will be restricted by employment systems and regulations designed to prevent them from acquiring political influence.
To be sure, complex equality still requires the setting of minimum and maximum standards of living. On the one hand, healthcare, education, basic housing, and food will become universally held rights, as will a monthly basic income. This will ensure that no one is forced to seek employment to avoid hunger or homelessness, and everyone will receive the resources necessary for full participation in politics, such as access to the media. On the other hand, complex equality also means that taxes on the wealthy will increase to effectively set a ceiling on how much income any individual can receive in a given year.
In the process of transitioning to socialism, how to deal with those who have amassed enormous wealth will be a severe challenge. Nevertheless, there are three legitimate expedients that can help resolve this issue: first, by gradually increasing what Thomas Piketty [5] calls a comprehensive wealth tax, a certain degree of redistribution can be mandated; second, by collecting inheritance taxes in a more rigorous and effective manner to close loopholes that allow the wealthy to transfer resources to their heirs tax-free; and third, by strictly enforcing regulations targeting foundations and non-profit organizations to draw a clear line between charitable and political activities. For example, a foundation’s efforts to reshape primary and secondary education would be redefined as illegal interference in a vital public policy issue, while the act of a private foundation paying the wages of tutors for impoverished children and funding such children would remain legal.
In short, the resources of the wealthy will gradually be divested, and new tax systems will prevent the creation of a "new rich." New rules will prevent another Mark Zuckerberg from building a startup into a multi-billion dollar corporate empire. Once a newly founded company reaches a certain size, the founder's ownership share will be limited, and the board of directors will be restructured to include representatives of employees and other corporate stakeholders.
Achieving these redistributive goals through legislation and public policy is extremely difficult because the wealthy will certainly resist. However, in the 20th century, due to the sustained pressure of leftist movements, significant success was indeed achieved in using taxes to reduce income and wealth inequality. In the 21st century, as more people recognize that the concentration of income and wealth is both unjust and dangerous, equitable distribution has the potential to be realized once again.
To be sure, Walzerian complex equality is a goal that can never be fully realized. For instance, it is difficult to imagine a society in which a world-class scientist does not receive better medical care than an ordinary citizen. The persistence of personal networks means that even the best-designed rules have the potential for their boundaries to be breached. However, by continuously improving the conditions for ordinary citizens to access medical care while setting boundaries to greatly reduce the phenomenon of using private connections to get in through the "back door," it is possible to approach this ideal goal.
V. Socialism will construct a dynamic economy focused on quality improvement
In many people's imaginations, socialism is viewed as a steady-state economy that eliminates the continuous technology-driven disruptions seen in the capitalist era. However, in the 21st century, as we face climate catastrophe and other environmental challenges, this is not a satisfactory vision. We urgently need new technologies that can substantially reduce greenhouse gases, thereby reversing the process of climate change. Even if we overcome this challenge, other new technologies will still be needed to reduce or reverse the negative impact of population on the environment. Furthermore, technology allows the labor time required to build a house or produce a bushel of wheat to continuously decline, thereby liberating many people from arduous labor. Therefore, a socialist society will continue to engage in technological innovation, pursuing the production of more products in less time. Increasing free time is essential for expanding participation and building solidary and inclusive communities.
Admittedly, under the existing system, new technologies are assumed to be harmless until the day they are proven to have destructive social and economic consequences. The result is that we tend to replace one dangerous chemical with a new compound, only to discover twenty years later that the compound is even worse. This problem could be solved through a regulatory mechanism that measures the actual costs and benefits of a new technology without any undue influence from those who stand to profit from its introduction.
Some argue that such regulatory mechanisms will never be sufficient to prevent harm and that a socialist society must completely reject the historic project of promoting economic growth. Here, however, it is crucial to distinguish between the quantitative growth reflected in GDP and the quality improvement often ignored by economic statistics. Quality improvement encompasses the enhancement of human well-being, benefiting from a more sustainable environment, continuously increasing life expectancy, more desirable leisure, a higher degree of economic security, and a more inclusive and vibrant community life.
Planning in a socialist society should support those technological advances that contribute to quality improvement while maintaining or reducing human labor hours and the input of capital and raw materials. In other words, the end of growth will occur at the input end rather than the output end. Humanity will continuously innovate and introduce new technologies to save resources and improve the quality of life.
VI. Socialism as the craving to create a livable society
In the industrial era, creating an organization and sustaining the communities where people lived was predicated on the prioritization of employment. Today, however, the proportion of the labor force working on farms or in factories has declined precipitously. Most paid and unpaid work is tied to the place of residence—construction, education, healthcare, social services, retail trade, local government, and the provision of care in both domestic and non-domestic settings. Although most of us work where we live, we still have little say in deciding how our communities should be organized. In short, we still live within the institutional and ideological structures of the industrial era, a period in which the issue of habitation was resolved outside of the political agenda.
We can understand socialism as a project to democratize the issue of habitation. We will have the right to decide how to create our communities and how to gradually refine them over time. We will also have the right to decide how much priority to give to environmental protection and what provisions a fair employment contract should include. Obviously, major disagreements will continue to exist on all these issues, but there will be a democratized process of consultation and decision-making. Furthermore, we will establish mechanisms, such as courts, to ensure that the democratization process does not trample on the rights of specific groups.
Thereafter, we will improve the environment of our habitations through new infrastructure construction and continuous innovation in products and processes. But here, we will leave greater space for the democratic voice. Large-scale infrastructure projects will only be implemented after sustained discussion of various alternatives, so that the public can clearly see the pros and cons of different options. Similarly, innovations with disruptive potential will no longer be implemented solely by the unilateral decisions of entrepreneurs but will be subject to broad discussion. If the decision is made to proceed with these innovations, they will be introduced in a way that minimizes the degree of chaos or destruction.
The concept of a "habitation society" is crucial for understanding how a socialist economy operates. Capitalism relies on market competition to find more efficient ways of producing goods and services. In a habitable society, democratic consultation and active participation will continuously improve the living environment. Since most people will produce and consume around their place of residence, stronger democratic institutions will become an effective mechanism to help them collectively acquire more essential goods.
Finally, the issue of habitation prepares the ground for people to reflect and take action to address racial discrimination and gender exclusion. As we saw during the COVID-19 pandemic, many wealthy individuals responded to the crisis by moving to residences or resorts far from those infected by the virus. Those unable to escape saw their risks increase as the virus spread through prisons, meatpacking plants, and communities primarily populated by Black and Brown people. In other words, it is impossible to create a safe and resilient habitation when specific groups of people are excluded or dominated.
These forms of exclusion and dominance will not simply die out on their own. The project of building 21st-century socialism needs to confront and challenge these structural inequalities. At the same time, we must have a clear vision of the society we are striving to create. On this issue, the idea of a habitable society based on equality, inclusion, and democracy can help us. All those fighting against police violence, against environmental degradation, for affordable housing, for a living wage, and for reproductive rights should be able to understand the content explained above as part of a plan for the "democratization of habitation."
VII. Under Socialist Conditions, Innovation Will Flourish
A representative anti-socialist view is that, due to the lack of entrepreneurs with innovative motivations, a socialist society will be a stagnant one. This view represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the history of technological innovation. The fact is that throughout most historical periods, war and preparations for war have been the primary drivers of innovation. Emperors, kings, and elected leaders have channeled resources and professional expertise into war and military readiness to gain military advantages through innovative technologies, which has resulted in many key modern technologies.
In fact, even a socialist state like the Soviet Union demonstrated considerable technological capacity when it committed itself to developing military technology. This strongly suggests that a public and non-profit innovation system can also be productive. Since this system can be used to develop military technology, it should also be applicable to the development of civilian technology. Indeed, we have already observed that in the United States, many major innovations have originated in government laboratories. In recent decades, most successful macromolecular drugs have been developed by government-funded scientists, typically employed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) or universities receiving federal research grants.
In fact, under current circumstances, key technological progress requires cooperation between different groups of scientists and engineers, and the pursuit of private interests has become one of the main factors hindering technological progress. The race to patent new technologies undermines the necessary cooperation between technical personnel from different organizations. In a system where the results of new technologies are widely shared, scientists and engineers will be able to collaborate more effectively, and the pace of technological innovation will be greatly accelerated.
Some signs of this vision have vaguely emerged in cases where different groups of programmers collaborate to develop "open-source software." On this basis, the public sector can help grassroots groups acquire the computer programming skills necessary to share ride-hailing services, conduct environmental monitoring, and create more vibrant public news platforms. Similarly, public-sector-funded "makerspaces" can provide access to precision machine tools and specialized knowledge, thereby allowing invention and innovation to be ubiquitous.
VIII. Socialism Requires a Democratized Financial System
With ongoing investment in productive forces, infrastructure, and innovation, a socialist society needs a financial system capable of allocating capital to meet different types of investment needs. Small businesses, cooperatives, communities wishing to improve their habitations, and government laboratories wishing to invest in new technologies all need access to capital. Furthermore, not all projects seeking financing can be satisfied at the same time. This requires a management system to prioritize different projects; some projects may be excluded from the funding system because they violate environmental or social justice principles, or simply because they are deemed to have low priority.
The complexity of such a financial design lies in the fact that the more centralized the financial system, the more power is concentrated in the hands of a few financial institutions. These institutions decide issues such as which communities do or do not need a new public transportation system. Consequently, it becomes very difficult to constrain key decision-makers from using their power to seek gains in other areas of social life. However, if we consider the opposite direction—establishing a highly decentralized financial management system composed of diverse and competing financial institutions—problems of over-investment or under-investment during specific periods will arise.
The solution to this dilemma is to establish different tiers of financial institutions, each with its corresponding responsibilities. The first tier of financial institutions focuses on investing in large-scale infrastructure projects; the second tier focuses on large-scale investments in large state-owned or private enterprises; the third tier focuses on investing in small businesses, including non-profits and cooperatives; and the final tier focuses on investing in household needs, such as mortgages, renovations, and new business startups.
Within each tier, there must be some competition. Therefore, even if a project is rejected by one investment institution, there will be other potential funders who appreciate the value of the project. At the same time, each tier must have a dedicated regulatory body responsible for limiting the loans of that tier within certain parameters to keep the economy running near full capacity. Regulatory authorities will also coordinate to ensure that the total amount of funding is at an appropriate level.
In all tiers, financial institutions will operate as non-profit organizations, and the compensation of senior executives will be similar to that of the highest-level civil servants. Cutting out any kind of excess financial profit will help minimize the temptation to use funds to make speculative bets on the appreciation of certain types of assets. Decision-makers will strictly evaluate projects based on their economic, social, and environmental impacts.
IX. The Global Green New Deal is the Path of Hope Toward Socialism
At present, Western democracy seems to be retreating on a global scale. When protecting democratic institutions and practices becomes a major challenge, people naturally harbor doubts about the possibility of moving toward socialism. However, the severe climate crisis has changed this mindset. Scientists have predicted for years that the continued burning of fossil fuels would trigger disasters, and today we are witnessing the severe consequences of rising temperatures: droughts, melting polar ice, and uncontrollable fires.
The time has come for the people of the world to form a united front to address climate change. This united front must be as broad as possible and include important business interest groups. The challenge we currently face is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as much as possible while accelerating the deployment of renewable energy and using new agricultural, industrial, building, and transportation technologies to minimize energy consumption. However, all of this must be achieved in a way that is socially and economically inclusive and capable of strengthening democratic institutions. Without inclusion and democracy, it will be impossible to motivate the active participation of the people of the world, and such active participation is essential for achieving progress in climate governance at the necessary speed.
This is precisely the vision envisioned by the call for a Global Green New Deal. First, it requires large-scale investment in reducing greenhouse gas emissions in both developing and developed countries. Although many of these investments must be provided by public institutions and non-profit financial institutions at the national and global levels, much of the actual reform work will happen at the local level. For example, buildings need insulation, roofs must have solar panels installed, farmers need to have the soil sequester more carbon, and cities must be reorganized to reduce car use and transition to electric vehicles. To turn these ideas into reality, millions of people must be mobilized, and those at risk from these changes must be protected, including workers in coal mines or oil refineries, as well as those made homeless by rising sea levels and devastating wildfires.
Admittedly, the degree to which a Green New Deal achieves inclusion and democracy may vary across different regions. But the key is that the values upheld by the popular front against climate change are solidarity, inclusion, democracy, and the use of government authority to solve problems. These are very similar to the values invoked by [Erik Olin] Wright when he proposed that capitalist hegemony is being eroded. In short, formulating a Global Green New Deal is a logical and feasible path toward 21-century socialism.