Yao Xiaohong: A Critical Study of Green Capitalism by Contemporary Western Leftist Scholars
Entering the 21st century, and particularly since the occurrence of the 2008 international financial crisis, the discourse system of green capitalism—characterized by terms such as the "green economy," "green growth," and the "Green New Deal"—has become a new expression through which contemporary developed Western countries attempt to repair the crisis. This concept propagates the coordinated development of capital accumulation and the ecological environment. Premised on not changing the fundamental capitalist system, it attempts to reconcile the contradiction between capital and ecology by relying on means such as modern technology, the market, and the government. Under the advocacy of these ideas, Western monopoly capital has initiated a "green" turn one after another. A large number of bankers and entrepreneurs, once seen as the chief culprits of natural degradation, have been recast as the "saviors" of nature. It appears as if contemporary capitalism has discovered an effective path to repair the ecological crisis and realize the continuous recovery of surplus value. However, can so-called green capitalism truly reshape the relationship between humanity and nature? Are continuous capital accumulation and the ecological environment compatible? What is the actual relationship between economic growth and the environment? How should a social transformation plan be designed to replace contemporary capitalism? Western leftist scholars have launched a series of inquiries into these questions.
I. Western Leftist Scholars' Exposure of the Falsity of Green Capitalism
Western leftist scholars generally reject the "green" turn of contemporary capitalism. In their view, so-called green capitalism is essentially a new form of continuous expansion by contemporary monopoly capital under a green disguise. To this end, scholars have exposed the falsity of green capitalism from multiple dimensions, focusing on the inherent logic of capital’s pursuit of continuous growth, the internal contradictions between the capitalist mode of production and ecology, and the resulting ecological consequences.
First, green capitalism caters to the logical requirement of capital to pursue continuous valorization. Capital’s "green growth" is actually a new method for contemporary monopoly capital to resolve crises; its fundamental purpose remains serving the expansion of capital, which ensures that green capitalism does not exceed the boundaries of neoliberalism.
Capitalism has never lacked means to respond to crises. After the 2008 international financial crisis broke out, monopoly capitalists quickly transformed into advocates and promoters of the "green economy." They shrewdly discovered that the ecological field actually conceals huge business opportunities, providing a profitable new opening for capital to emerge from the shadow of the financial crisis. The Austrian scholar Clive L. Spash points out that "for the world's wealthy minority, ecological and economic crises are just another opportunity to make money." [1] It seems that capital can not only break through ecological barriers to achieve continuous expansion, but is even regarded by developed Western countries as an important solution to ecological problems. However, the realization of bottomless value expansion is the true goal capital cares about; the large financial groups, social elites, and mainstream thinkers of developed countries do not intend to fundamentally change capitalist property relations or power systems. In this regard, John Bellamy Foster, a representative figure of American Ecosocialism, emphasizes that ecological problems have not yet constituted an insurmountable barrier to capital accumulation, and we should not underestimate the ability of capitalism to achieve its own accumulation and sustained profitability amidst ecological degradation. [2]
Scholars represented by Giorgos Kallis, Thomas Wanner, and Naomi Klein have successively revealed the essence of green capitalism. In their view, the "green economy" and "green growth" of contemporary capitalism mask the truth of capital’s pursuit of continuous growth. Through extensive data analysis, Kallis and others point out that "green growth is likely to be a misguided objective" in the post-financial crisis era; [3] this emerging concept has not fundamentally changed the growth-oriented model of economic development, but merely obscures the contradiction between capital accumulation and the ecological environment. Wanner regards "green growth" as a "passive revolution" [14] by neoliberalism in response to its own contradictions and crises. "Green growth" claims to achieve the decoupling of economic growth from resources and the environment, but in reality, "green growth" still takes the infinite expansion of capital as its fundamental goal and has "smoothly" promoted capital's continuous erosion of resources and the environment. The famous Canadian scholar Naomi Klein points out that in recent years, attempts by developed countries to stop global warming through green technology and market regulation have all ended in failure. The root cause lies in the fact that "we have an economic system that is pathologically obsessed with GDP growth, placing it above everything else. It ignores the social and ecological consequences brought about by this behavior." [5] It is evident that green capitalism is merely a means for Western monopoly capital to cope with complex economic and ecological crises; seeking the continuous growth of value and wealth remains the core goal of capitalists. Whether it is the green economy, green growth, or the Green New Deal, they are actually capitalists pouring the "old wine of growth into the new bottle of the economy." [6]
In addition, Western leftist scholars believe that the "greening" of capital has not fundamentally eradicated the contradiction between capital accumulation and ecology; the destruction of ecology by capital has not decreased but has further worsened. German scholar Jason Hickel, in his article "Is Green Growth Possible?", explicitly denies the compatibility between capital accumulation and the resource environment. On the one hand, from the perspective of resource and energy utilization, it is impossible for continuous capital growth to completely decouple from resources and energy. This is primarily because capital accumulation will inevitably encounter natural physical limits; "when resource efficiency reaches physical limits, continued GDP growth will drive resource use back up." [7] On the other hand, from the perspective of actual carbon emissions, neither green technology nor the research and development of new energy can completely and effectively solve the problem. Even if the application of clean energy such as wind and solar can suppress carbon emissions to a certain extent, the actual rate of reduction still lags significantly behind the targets set by the Paris Agreement. Furthermore, the carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology schemes praised by many scholars are actually immature and "highly controversial among climate scientists." [8] Victor Wallis also points out that technological fetishism has always been a norm of capitalist development, and the greening of technology actually reflects the demands of enterprises—namely, the pursuit of profit maximization and continuous growth. [9] Although the technological solutions of green capitalism have placed a legal cloak over the ecological plunder of capital accumulation, these solutions have failed to fundamentally reverse the ecological crisis; the ecological problems of developed countries and the world remain severe.
Second, green capitalism, rooted in the capitalist mode of production, cannot fundamentally eliminate ecological contradictions. Scholars represented by Ecosocialists believe that there is an irreconcilable contradiction between the capitalist mode of production and nature. Without a fundamental transformation of the capitalist mode of production, so-called green capitalism is merely a screen for capital’s nature of continued profit-seeking and its conflict with nature.
Ecosocialist scholars such as John Bellamy Foster, David Pepper, and Paul Burkett generally emphasize the importance of historical materialism in studying ecological problems. They point out that this Marxist method provides effective guidance for analyzing the roots of the capitalist ecological crisis, the relationship between ecological problems and class struggle, and how humanity and nature can develop in coordination. Accordingly, they argue that the relationship between humanity and nature is neither abstract nor hollow, nor can it be simply regarded as a purely natural process. Without the specific social mode of production, one cannot grasp the essence of ecological problems. [10] The practice of material production is the premise for the survival and development of human society and the bond connecting humanity and nature. This production process appears on the surface as an interaction between humanity and nature, but in reality, it is a social process—that is, how people own the means of production and how they distribute the products of labor fundamentally shapes the status of the relationship between humanity and nature. Moreover, the state of the human-nature relationship changes along with changes in the mode of social production. "So far, since human production is generally determined by its social form and specific class relations, its evolution cannot be regarded as a simple natural process. The production relations between man and nature must be regarded as a socially mediated natural relationship." [11]
Foster and other scholars further explain the inherent conflict between the capitalist mode of production and nature. In their view, capitalism is a specific mode of production, and the separation of the producer from the means of production constitutes the essential characteristic of capitalist social production. It is on the basis of this specific mode of production that capitalist production and reproduction realize the dual exploitation of labor and nature. First, the antagonistic relationship between people regarding the appropriation of nature under capitalist conditions fundamentally leads to the antagonism between humanity and nature. Foster specifically distinguishes between two categories: the "general appropriation" of nature and "capitalist appropriation." "Humans are objective and material. Like all other living beings, we cannot survive without the free appropriation of nature." [12] The human use and appropriation of nature exists universally in human society; however, the appropriation of nature by humans under capitalist conditions is essentially different from the general appropriation relationship. Capitalist private ownership excludes direct producers from the ownership of the means of production, which creates the fundamental premise for capital to plunder nature and expand wildly. Under capitalist conditions, the so-called ability of everyone to appropriate nature is essentially only the appropriation of nature by capital; the conflict between humanity and nature is undoubtedly a true reflection of the contradictory relationship between people. Second, in the capitalist production process, the subjective status of the worker is completely lost, and nature is alienated into an important force for controlling labor. The economic system in which workers are separated from natural production conditions fundamentally causes and exacerbates the alienation of humanity and nature. [13] In the capitalist production process, workers lose their status as subjects of labor, and natural production conditions—existing in the form of raw materials and fuel—stand opposed to labor as the property of capital. This makes it impossible for workers to truly care about the conservation and effective utilization of natural resources in production. Finally, the separation of the producer from the means of production destroys the normal order of metabolic exchange between humanity and nature, leading to a metabolic "rift" under capitalist conditions. The relationship between humanity and nature is essentially a process of continuous material and energy exchange. However, capitalist social production, with the fundamental goal of seeking value expansion, merely plunders nature blindly and one-dimensionally; it replaces the two-way interaction between human social production and nature with a non-interactive form, subsequently destroying the normal metabolism between humanity and nature. As an objective system independent of capital accumulation, the conditions for nature to maintain its own reproduction are obstructed, thereby inducing various ecological problems.
Accordingly, Ecosocialism denies the thoroughness and authenticity of green capitalism. In their view, whether it is economic policies such as ecological taxes and carbon trading introduced by capitalist states, or the application of green technology and new energy substitution advocated by capitalist enterprises, as long as the capitalist mode of private ownership is not fundamentally changed, it is impossible for workers to enjoy various natural conditions and the benefits they bring on an equal basis. So-called wealth fairness and ecological justice can only be a flowery and hollow fantasy.
Third, green capitalism severely tramples upon ecological justice. The implementation of the "green economy" and "Green New Deal" by developed capitalist countries since the 2008 international financial crisis has not only failed to fundamentally resolve ecological contradictions but has further exacerbated the inequality between the poor and the rich, and between poor countries and rich countries, in terms of the enjoyment of ecological benefits and the assumption of ecological responsibilities.
Currently, global competition and the plunder of ecological resources have become central components of monopoly capital's maneuvers. Natural conditions of production are indispensable factors for any form of social production and reproduction. Although the realization of boundless valorization is the internal logic of capital, nature remains the necessary prerequisite for maintaining the reproduction of capital. Without natural material production conditions—such as resources and energy of a certain quantity and quality required to sustain capital reproduction—capital accumulation cannot truly be realized. Brett Clark and others explain that capitalist production is a dialectical unity of use-value and valorization; valorization dominates use-value, yet its realization "ultimately depends upon the production and exchange of commodities, which encompass use-values of natural matter" [14]. In the processes of capitalist industrialization and globalization, the fanatical pursuit of value-wealth by capital has obscured any concern for nature, and nature has been alienated into a mere tool for capital to chase profit. However, the constraints placed on capital accumulation by ecological and environmental problems—such as shortages of various resources and energy and the degradation of ecosystems—have become increasingly prominent. Consequently, how to dissolve various ecological obstacles to create favorable conditions for sustained capital profitability, and how to break through all national and regional restrictions to carry out ecological plunder on a global scale, have become the focus of capital's attention and competition.
However, the new round of eco-colonial plunder launched by capital has severely damaged ecological justice between the poor and the rich, and between poor and rich nations. Achieving control over material resources is the core of capital accumulation and competition, yet it has brought about serious social and environmental inequalities within and between states [15]. Specifically, Western monopoly capital has exploited poor people and poor nations through the dual dimensions of value-wealth and ecological interests. On the one hand, the gap between the rich and the poor within developed Western countries, and between developed and underprivileged countries, has further widened. Within capitalist countries, the capitalization and privatization of nature have fundamentally led to an unjust distribution of social wealth between different classes. On the international scale, developed countries—relying on their manipulation of the international economic system and their advantageous position in the international division of labor—unjustly plunder backward countries and regions in an attempt to maintain the structural relationship of "center" versus "periphery" [16] over the long term. Thus, it is evident that the fundamental purpose of the "greening" of contemporary Western capitalism is to promote the continuous profitability of monopoly capital, even at the cost of sacrificing the interests of the poor and poor nations. On the other hand, the ecological problems resulting from the eco-colonial expansion of capital may appear to exist equally for everyone, but in reality, they affect the world's rich and poor, and rich and poor nations, in an unjust manner. Faced with the same ecological degradation, different classes and nations/regions at different stages of development harbor different concerns, and they bear different ecological risks and consequences. The wealthy in developed countries are more concerned with the quantity of their economic wealth and the quality of a beautiful life, while the poor are more concerned with their very survival. As David Harvey points out, "the rich 'at any price' are unlikely to give up a comfortable environment, whereas the poor, who cannot afford to lose, are very likely to sacrifice it for a pittance" [17]. Although advocates of green capitalism in Western countries also list enhancing human social welfare and improving the environment for human survival and development as important goals, conceptualizing the ecosystem merely as a provider of human welfare actually masks the issue of inequality—namely, the questions of "what welfare, and for whose welfare" [18]. Within developed capitalist countries, the poor have effectively become the primary victims of toxic waste, polluted water sources, and hazardous urban housing. Internationally, problems appearing in backward countries and regions—such as resource scarcity, air pollution, declining water quality, and soil contamination—severely threaten the lives and health of local residents, yet Western monopoly capital turns a blind eye.
Currently, capitalism is eroding civilization and life across the entire planet [19]. Green capitalism has not only failed to eliminate the contradictions between humanity and nature, and between humans themselves, but has instead further damaged ecological justice. The accumulation of massive wealth in contemporary capitalism is, in essence, a severe trampling of the basic rights of the poor and poor nations to ecology, health, and safety. On one side, developed capitalist countries continue to advance resource plunder and value-wealth accumulation worldwide; on the other side, the vast masses of the poor and people in backward countries suffer under the multiple threats of ecological and developmental crises. As eco-colonialism rages, people in an increasing number of developing countries and regions have launched a series of protest activities. The intensification of ecological injustice worldwide and the resulting series of social contradictions and conflicts constitute the most powerful rebuttal to green capitalism.
II. "Degrowth" Theory and the Resulting Academic Debates
While exposing the falsity of green capitalism, Western left-wing scholars have further explored the root causes of its failure and paths for its resolution. Among these, scholars have engaged in heated academic debates centered on the relationship between economic growth and resources/the environment. As a theoretical reflection responding to contemporary green capitalism, "degrowth" theory has exerted significant influence within left-wing academic circles, while simultaneously facing various challenges.
Inquiries into the relationship between economic growth and resources/the environment can actually be traced back to the 18th century. During this period, the famous British economist Thomas Robert Malthus noted capitalist environmental issues relatively early. In An Essay on the Principle of Population, he viewed population growth as the root cause of social contradictions such as food shortages, poverty, and war, advocating for the restriction of population growth as the solution. Entering the mid-to-late 20th century, alongside the increasing severity of capitalist ecological problems, the Club of Rome largely inherited Malthusian perspectives. In The Limits to Growth, they expanded the scope of growth from population to include material production, energy consumption, and environmental pollution, arguing that growth cannot continue indefinitely as the finiteness of nature "ultimately determines the limits to growth on this planet" [20]. Only by implementing "zero growth" can a true balance between ecological demand and supply be achieved. During the same period, economists represented by Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen and Herman Daly also emphasized the role of natural factors in economic growth; in the face of ecosystem degradation, Daly explicitly advocated for the development of a "steady-state economy." Additionally, André Gorz, a representative figure of French Ecological Marxism, argued that a fundamental contradiction exists between economic growth and natural conditions; there is an essential difference between "economic rationality," which is committed to maximizing economic efficiency and continuous growth, and "ecological rationality," which seeks the minimum possible consumption of nature [21]. Only by replacing "economic rationality" with "ecological rationality" can ecological problems be resolved. In short, the aforementioned perspectives provided an important intellectual foundation for "degrowth" theory.
Entering the 21st century, in response to the rise of green capitalism following the financial crisis, the "degrowth" theory advocated by scholars such as Giorgos Kallis and Jason Hickel became an influential academic trend within Western green left-wing circles. This theory posits that a fundamental antagonism exists between economic growth and resources/the environment; any mode of production committed to growth—whether capitalist or socialist—is ecologically unsustainable [22]. That is to say, ecological degradation is closely related to the fetishization of the value of economic growth and is unrelated to any specific social mode of production; if a society adopts the pursuit of economic growth as its dominant philosophy, it will inevitably lead to a series of ecological problems. This is primarily because the growth of the human economy and the improvement of material living standards actually mean more material and energy consumption, and more resource consumption inevitably increases the burden on the ecological environment. Only by completely reversing the economic concept of growth-as-goal can the relationship between humanity and nature be truly improved. Regarding this, Kallis further analyzed capitalist economic growth and socialist economic growth specifically. In his view, infinite desire and eternal scarcity constitute the core characteristics of capitalism; capitalism creates scarcity and uses it to justify its infinite expansion. However, natural limits constitute obstacles to the infinite expansion of capital, and even possessing sufficient ecological technology cannot sustain the uninterrupted growth of capital. Similarly, if socialism pursues economic growth, it is also ecologically unsustainable and will likewise lead to ecological degradation. He denies the possibility of economic growth based on ecological principles under socialist conditions. Although socialism can overcome capitalist alienation and achieve socialized ownership of the means of production, it still cannot achieve the coordinated development of economic growth and the ecological environment. Therefore, socialism should not blindly emulate capitalism but should abandon the goal of economic growth and adopt "degrowth" as the objective of its socialist pursuit.
Proponents of "degrowth" theory have further explained its connotations. First, they clarified the distinction between this theory and Malthusian environmentalism. Kallis pointed out that, on the surface, the emphasis on natural limits as a constraint on economic growth is a similarity between the two. However, the two theories show significant differences regarding whether humans can recognize natural limits and whether they can transcend them. The error of Malthusian environmentalism lies not in their emphasis that growth has limits, but in their pessimistic belief that humans cannot break through natural limits regardless of what they do. In contrast, while "degrowth" theory similarly emphasizes natural limits, it is built on a meaning different from that understood by Malthusian environmentalism. This is mainly reflected in the fact that the so-called natural limits in Malthusian environmentalism are presented as external, imposed constraints; whereas the natural limits in "degrowth" theory can be avoided—that is, humans can escape natural limits through conscious "self-limitation," reshaping value systems aimed at growth, and reorganizing production, reproduction, and consumption [23]. Second, they specifically analyzed the main content and characteristics of "degrowth." Hickel emphasized that "degrowth" does not mean a comprehensive downsizing, nor is it equivalent to an economic recession. For instance, "degrowth" is planned, with the primary goal of reducing the damage of economic activity to the ecological environment, reducing social inequality, and promoting human welfare; "degrowth" is not about blindly reducing economic activity, as it also focuses on expanding sectors such as healthcare and education. By contrast, an economic recession is neither planned nor concerned with the ecological environment, social equality, or human welfare [24].
"Degrowth" theory has sparked significant controversy in current Western left-wing academic circles. Overall, the theory's critiques of capital have been generally affirmed by other scholars. David Schwartzman explicitly stated that "we basically agree with the explanation of capitalist economic growth by Kallis and others; in this respect, we are in alignment" [25]. Eleanor Finley also noted that "degrowth" theory emphasizes that a planet with finite resources cannot sustain a society committed to the continuous growth of material production and consumption, and that "this theory puts forward a powerful argument against capitalism, directly challenging the economic way of thinking driven by resource scarcity" [26]. However, even if "degrowth" theory's critique of capital accumulation shows great commonality with other left-wing scholars, it diverges significantly regarding the relationship between economic growth and the ecological environment—particularly whether a socialist economy needs growth and its relationship with ecology. Specifically, opponents of "degrowth" theory have focused their critiques on the following aspects.
First, "degrowth" theory creates an antagonism between humanity and nature.
Finley points out that degrowth theory severely pits social production against nature, essentially exhibiting a dualistic view of nature. In the "degrowth" theoretical schema, nature sits at one end, passive and finite; human society sits at the other, active and infinite. This undoubtedly severs the organic link between humanity and nature. Finley notes that while creating this opposition and division, the theory explains the ecological crisis as a failure of collective human self-limitation, which often tends to lead toward political authoritarianism [27]. Schwartzman asserts that the problem with Kallis and others is their violation of ecological principles and their misunderstanding of the relationship between human social production and ecosystems. Ecosystems are not static; humans are not in absolute confrontation with the ecology. Ecosystems are dynamic and constantly changing; even without human influence, they interact and evolve internally [28]. The development of humans and human society is inseparable from nature, but there is no direct, proportional relationship between the material consumption carried out by humans and ecological degradation. He further explains that human utilization of clean, renewable energy sources like wind and solar power can both raise the level of social production and reduce the impact on the ecology. Therefore, one cannot examine the relationship between production and ecology through a mechanical or one-sided lens. In short, defects such as mechanism and dualism exhibited by "degrowth" theory have become major targets of criticism by other leftist scholars.
Second, "degrowth" ignores the importance of the mode of production and class relations in the study of ecological issues.
Because degrowth theory focuses excessively on values and imaginaries, it is often accused of having an idealistic [29] tendency. German scholar Ulrich Brand points out that in modern environmental political theory, degrowth theory manifests as a conscious transformation of values. Economic growth is not merely a process of material production and distribution; it is built upon specific social relations of production and is dedicated to consolidating those relations [30]. Similarly, scholars represented by Foster, Richard Smith, and Stefania Barca also strongly oppose discussing ecological issues in the abstract, divorced from specific social modes of production. Foster points out that discussions of ecological issues cannot be separated from specific social modes of production, as the state of relations between people in social production fundamentally shapes the relationship between humanity and nature. Regarding capitalism, it should be "understood as a mode of production and exchange based on class relations, which carries out capital accumulation through the exploitation of labor and the private appropriation of surplus value" [31]. It is precisely by relying on this unique social mode of production that capital achieves a dual exploitation of nature and labor. Barca also notes that constructing an ecologically sound society is not just about a reduction in material production activities; if capitalistic alienation of labor cannot be overcome, and if democratic control and decision-making by workers over the means of production and surplus products cannot be achieved, then so-called "degrowth" is impossible. Therefore, "building a degrowth society can only begin with promoting de-alienation" [32]. Evidently, in the view of these scholars, resolving the ecological crisis of capitalist society is not merely a matter of changing values or transforming economic concepts; it involves a deeper restructuring of the mode of appropriation of the means of production and the mode of wealth distribution.
Third, degrowth theory denies the necessity of socialist economic growth and its consistency with ecology.
Schwartzman argues that Kallis opposes socialist economic growth primarily because he has a serious misunderstanding of socialism and fails to grasp the essential difference between capitalist growth and socialist growth. Socialism is not just a system for the distribution of wealth; it is a social mode of production that replaces private capitalist appropriation with the combined control of the means of production. Whether to satisfy people's needs for higher quality healthcare and education or to effectively respond to natural disasters and diseases, socialism relies on a certain degree of economic growth. Without such growth, socialism cannot perform the distribution and redistribution of wealth, nor can it satisfy high-quality human needs or promote human well-being [33]. Furthermore, economic growth has vastly different objectives under different social conditions. Socialist economic growth is not subordinated to the needs of capital profit, but is based on satisfying the needs of human beings themselves and the development of human society as a whole. As Brand points out, production driven purely by profit-led growth is fundamentally different from production oriented toward human well-being, the quality of production and consumption, and the ecological environment [34]. Therefore, under socialist conditions of production—particularly after achieving the socialization of the means of production—humanity and nature can fundamentally escape the state of alienation found under capitalist conditions.
In summary, degrowth theory and the academic debates it has sparked constitute an important part of the Western leftist academic community's active reflection on green capitalism in the post-financial crisis era. This academic debate reflects significant differences among scholars in terms of theoretical perspectives and research methods, and a unified theoretical consensus has yet to emerge. However, this debate has also expanded scholars' exploration of the capitalist ecological crisis and demonstrated the diversified nature of their designs for alternatives to capitalist society.
III. Western Leftist Scholars’ Designs for Socio-Ecological Transformation Schemes
In the process of seeking alternatives to capitalist society, promoting socio-ecological transformation has become a new demand for many Western leftist scholars in the post-financial crisis era. They have not only clarified the basic internal meaning of socio-ecological transformation but have also planned specific paths for it. Compared to the past, the paths for social transformation in this period exhibit a series of new changes and characteristics.
Socio-ecological transformation is viewed by many leftist scholars as a process of radical change involving the socio-economy, politics, and culture. Australian scholar Robyn Eckersley explicates the meaning of socio-ecological transformation by distinguishing between the concepts of "transition" and "transformation." In her view, they are two different concepts: the former refers to a transition from one state to another, whereas the latter signifies a more radical and thorough change in social formation [35]. For the understanding of social "transformation," Eckersley cites Karl Polanyi's analysis of the "Great Transformation." Polanyi viewed the "Great Transformation" as a process of replacement of social formations, in which the liberalization of markets and the commodification of land and labor triggered changes in class relations, state functions, cultural cognition, social identity, and the flow of resources and energy, thereby driving the replacement of feudal society by capitalist society. Additionally, Eckersley further explains that although there is a connection between "transition" and "transformation"—in that the continuous accumulation of the former provides the foundation for the latter—it is necessary to distinguish between these two concepts. One important reason is that this distinction provides a method for understanding and evaluating the depth and direction of social change [36].
Unlike scholars such as Eckersley who grasp the meaning of socio-ecological transformation through the analysis of different concepts, Brand focuses on revealing the essential meaning of socio-ecological transformation by criticizing the research paradigm of Western ecological modernization theory. Facing the capitalist ecological crisis, mainstream Western thinkers and social elites advocate for "green development" strategies involving value concepts, social norms, and the application of ecological technology. In Brand's view, this strategy is actually no different from capitalist ecological modernization theory. Their fundamental problem lies in the fact that the diagnosis of the ecological crisis is almost never conducted from the perspective of criticizing capitalism, and social change is rooted merely in the existing economic, political, and cultural institutions of capitalism [37]. In contrast, socio-ecological transformation theory examines capitalist society from a critical perspective, advocating for more radical social change and committing to the construction of modes of production, modes of consumption, and power structures that transcend capitalism. Faced with the multiple crises of capitalism, the promotion of capitalist social change is a continuous process. "However, the important question is what logic of change will occupy the dominant position. This will have profound strategic political implications" [38]. Thus, so-called socio-ecological transformation is essentially a systematic innovation covering politics, culture, and norms based on a radical change of the capitalist system; the emphasis on the unity of environmental change and social institutional reform constitutes an important characteristic of socio-ecological transformation theory.
At the same time, Western leftist scholars have further explored specific paths for socio-ecological transformation. Regarding how to promote this transformation, scholars' views share commonalities but also possess distinct characteristics. Compared to previous designs for ideal social schemes, their designs for socio-ecological transformation paths in this period mainly exhibit the following new characteristics:
On one hand, the critique and scrutiny of capitalism have become increasingly rational. Unlike the extreme and one-sided critiques of capitalism by most previous leftist scholars, some scholars have gradually adopted a relatively rational and inclusive attitude toward green capitalism. While they deny the thoroughness and authenticity of green capitalism, they also recognize the positive significance of state governance and ecological technology in ecological management and social transformation. Schwartzman explicitly points out that a lack of strategic thinking is a prominent defect of the contemporary left, a major manifestation of which is the exclusive use of a comprehensive critical lens to examine green capitalism, ignoring or denying the role of a "Green New Deal" in social transformation [39]. In his view, although the "Green New Deal" currently praised by Western countries cannot thoroughly save capitalism, these policies can play a potential facilitative role. This is primarily because, given the increasingly severe ecological degradation today, various policies and measures conducive to maintaining ecological development cannot wait until after the realization of socialism to be implemented. Only by launching various ecological protection projects under the existing capitalist system can a path to ecological socialism truly be opened [40]. Furthermore, the "Green New Deal" introduced by developed countries currently provides favorable factors for achieving the transition to ecological socialism. Whether it is active government intervention, the development of green industries, or the application of energy-saving and environmental protection technologies, these not only help improve the ecological environment but also contribute to enhancing the welfare of workers themselves. Thus, the "strategic thinking" emphasized by Schwartzman is actually a dialectical attitude toward green capitalism, unifying the effective utilization of green capitalism within the process of replacing capitalism and constructing ecological socialism.
Regarding how to utilize green capitalism, many leftist scholars particularly emphasize the role of the state in socio-ecological transformation. For a long time, two main views have formed around the relationship between the state and ecological governance: the first emphasizes the compatibility and consistency between the capitalist state and capital accumulation, exposing the reality that the state serves capital accumulation, and consequently denying or downplaying the state's role in socio-ecological transformation; the second, while not denying the internal connection between the state and the socio-economy, emphasizes the unique responsibilities and functions the state possesses in social change, especially its positive role in promoting ecological improvement. Currently, the latter view has gained the endorsement of many scholars. Christoph Görg and others believe that the state is neither a neutral entity nor merely a tool of capital rule, but a social relation [41]. The concept of the state cannot be examined in isolation, but must be scrutinized from the social relations in which it is situated and its function in maintaining or changing various social relations. Specifically, the state plays a vital role in coordinating multifaceted economic and political conflicts and promoting social consensus. Struggles in the ecological field are likewise inseparable from the state; the state must be regarded as a key force in promoting socio-ecological transformation. Austrian scholar Daniel Hausknost and British scholar Marit Hammond, in their article "Beyond the Environmental State? The Political Prospects of a Sustainability Transformation," also point out that while the "environmental state"—as a popular term in current developed Western countries—has never thoroughly broken the institutional framework of capitalism, one cannot blindly deny the role of the state in ecological governance and environmental political transformation. This requires a renewal of concepts to reconsider and assess the state's capacity to promote socio-ecological transformation [42].
On the other hand, focus is placed on the political alliance of ecological movements across different countries and regions. In the past, Left scholars emphasized the political alliance between different classes, strata, and social organizations within capitalist states. Currently, discussions by Western Left scholars regarding the path toward socio-ecological transformation possess a more global vision. In addition to paying close attention to political alliances within developed countries, they also focus on and affirm the ecological movements frequently rising in developing countries and regions, advocating for regional and global ecological cooperation across different nations.
The reasons for these changes are multifaceted. First, the expansion of ecological colonialism [43] by developed countries has intensified global ecological contradictions. The contradiction between capital and ecology has broken through national and ethnic regional boundaries to expand globally. Ecological contradictions are manifested not only between the poor and the rich within capitalist countries but also prominently between underdeveloped and developed nations. The production and reproduction of capitalist society is a self-propelling and continuously expanding process. Faced with various ecological barriers, breaking through geographical boundaries to find new resource sources and realize the replacement of means of production on a global scale has become an important way for capital to achieve sustained valorization. Moreover, along with the continuous expansion of capital, the production and lifestyles of Western developed countries have gradually permeated underdeveloped countries and regions, becoming a template blindly imitated by certain groups. This creates a certain interconnectedness among different countries and regions in terms of solving ecological problems.
Second, ecological movements present different characteristics in developed and developing countries. On one hand, ecological movements in Western countries have encountered new dilemmas. Since their rise, while they have played a positive role in promoting ecological improvement, they now face a series of new problems. Due to differences in guiding ideology, interest considerations, and value perceptions, various ecological organizations are fragmented into numerous factions with serious disagreements, making it difficult to carry out united and effective cooperation. More seriously, in recent years, accompanied by the "green" turn of Western governments, some labor organizations and social groups have even been co-opted by governments, harboring great illusions about so-called "green growth" and "green economy" under capitalism, gradually degenerating from critics of capitalism into its defenders. On the other hand, radical ecological movements are rising in developing countries and regions. Accompanied by the expansion of ecological colonialism by developed countries, relevant organizations and people in underdeveloped countries and regions have questioned and criticized the global economic and political order. They have launched a series of resistance movements to strive for ecological justice, demand that developed countries assume ecological responsibility, and pay ecological debts. Among these, some trade union organizations in Global South countries and regions have even proposed more radical policies, such as calling for a thorough change in the mode of ownership of the means of production.
Based on this, Western Left scholars have gradually accorded high attention to ecological movements in developing countries and regions. They advocate for active eco-political cooperation between different countries and even place their hopes for the leading force of the global ecological movement on these nations. Brand argues that it is essential to adopt both global and long-term perspectives for the analysis of socio-ecological transformation; strengthening the political alliance of the Green Left across different countries and regions is not merely a matter of principle, but a matter of accelerating the overall process of socio-ecological transformation. Foster also points out that the capitalist destruction of the very foundation of human existence and development will eventually force the world's workers to unite and seek a new path forward. In his view, the main political forces and struggle strategies for changing the world's ecological state are currently concentrated in the Third World.
Conclusion
In summary, targeting the new "green" changes in contemporary capitalism, Western Left academia has exposed the essence of this change, conducted academic inquiries focusing on the relationship between economic growth and resources/environment, and redesigned concrete programs for future socio-ecological transformation. This theoretical research undoubtedly possesses certain positive significance. On one hand, it provides a reference for us to rationally recognize and grasp the new changes in contemporary capitalism. Following the international financial crisis, seeking the "green growth" of capital became an important concept and practice for Western countries attempting to resolve crises and perform self-redemption. Is this transformation effective? Can it truly realize the reconciliation between humanity and nature? The theoretical discussions actively launched by Left scholars provide beneficial references for us to grasp the essence of green capitalism and judge its development trends. On the other hand, this theoretical inquiry has, to a certain extent, defended the contemporary value of Marxism. The significance of Marxist basic viewpoints and methods for solving contemporary ecological problems is beyond doubt, but how to further apply and develop this scientific theory in integration with the changes of the New Era is worthy of in-depth study. Currently, the critiques and reflections on green capitalism by some Left scholars could be said to have drawn on relevant Marxist theories to a certain degree, expanding the research horizon of Marxism. Although this theoretical research is not yet mature or perfect, its theoretical consciousness [44] deserves affirmation.
At the same time, it cannot be ignored that we must clearly see that this theoretical research still contains obvious defects. For instance, from the perspective of theoretical scientificity, whether in exploring the relationship between economic growth and the ecological environment or in discussing the practical paths of social transformation, some scholars either completely discard the viewpoints and methods of historical materialism or attempt to use historical materialism but fail to uphold it consistently. From the perspective of theoretical systematicity and unity, significant differences exist among Western Left scholars in terms of theoretical foundations, research methods, and academic interests, resulting in large divergences in their theoretical views and making it difficult to form a complete and consistent theoretical system. Additionally, although the current critiques of capitalism by Left scholars have gradually presented a relatively objective and pertinent attitude, their theories either become mired in unrealistic theoretical fantasies or, faced with the enormous resistance from capitalist society, express pessimistic sentiments about the future, thereby degenerating into theoretical tools that serve Western states. In view of this, only by always adhering to the basic stance, viewpoints, and methods of Marxism, and firming up the "Four Confidences" [45] in the ecological civilization of socialism with Chinese characteristics, can the harmonious coexistence of humanity and nature truly be realized.
(Affiliation: School of Marxism, Hebei Agricultural University) Web Editor: Zhang Jian Source: Problems of Contemporary World Socialism, Issue 1, 2023