A new study shows that there is a strong majority support for ecosocialist transformation
Jason Hickel is a Professor at the Institute for Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA-UAB) at the Autonomous University of Barcelona, and Visiting Professor at the London School of Economics and Political Science
Cross-posted from Jason’s substack
How popular is ecosocialist transformation? We explored this question in a new study, just published in The Lancet Planetary Health together with colleagues at the London School of Economics.
We surveyed more than 5,000 people in the UK and US, using representative samples and two separate study designs. We presented people with a full proposal for eco-socialist transformation, which included the following:
-
scaling down damaging and unnecessary production and consumption
-
cutting the purchasing power of the rich, and reducing inequality
-
establishing universal public services and a public job guarantee to reorganise production around needs
-
democratising control over finance and the means of production
-
ending imperialist appropriation from the global South through unequal exchange
We found that this vision enjoys strong majority support in both countries. In the US, 72% of people supported it, and in the UK support was even higher at 82%. These are striking results, and confirm other studies showing popular support for many of the principles and policies associated with ecosocialism.
Next, we wanted to understand how people respond to various labels that may be used to describe this transformation, so we presented people with standalone words including “degrowth”, “ecosocialism”, and “well-being economy”, without any description. Here I will report results for the UK, but the US results are similar.
We found that “degrowth” was supported by 20-26%, depending on the study, but also attracted a lot of opposition (16-34%).
“Ecosocialism” had higher support, at 36-58%, and much lower opposition (11-16%).
“Well-being economy” had even higher support (51-81%) and very minimal opposition (more on this later).
In our final step, we gave people the full proposal but this time together with the various different labels. This enabled us to understand whether and how the use of different labels affects people’s support. We found that support was high regardless of the label, with strong majorities: 67-72% in the US, and 74-84% in the UK.
So what can we make of all this? For me, here are the main takeaways:
First, the transformative vision and policies advanced by ecosocialism are popular and can form the basis of a winning political campaign. The common notion that these ideas are too “radical” and cannot gain support, is clearly wrong. People want these things, and are likely to support political leaders who can credibly promise to deliver them. The main obstacle to transformation is not popular will, but the capitalist class that currently holds predominant power over production and within political institutions.
Second, some reflections on the word “degrowth”, which was the main focus of this study. Our results show that much of the opposition to (or neutrality toward) degrowth is due to misunderstanding of the word rather than rejection of the underlying principles and policies.
Degrowth is a crucial analytical and scientific term and we need it for these purposes. Advocates also note that it is a “missile word” useful for provoking people to rethink long-held assumptions. This can be powerful. But the word may be less useful as a public-facing political slogan, as — depending on the context — it is often misunderstood and can inspire negative reactions. Unless, that is, you have the capacity to educate people about what the term means and what such a transformation would entail.
Third, the term ecosocialism is substantially more popular and can create broader political support. We were surprised to find that up to 58% of people in both the UK and US were willing to support ecosocialism even when just presented with the word alone. We didn’t test people’s reactions to related terms, like “socialism” or “democratic socialism” or “communism”, but this would be interesting to do.
What about “well-being economy”? It is popular and obviously useful in certain contexts, but it is also apolitical and can easily be co-opted and neutralised. To me it’s important to be clear about the political antagonism that is at stake: the transformation requires removing the capitalist class from control over finance and the means of production. This is a class war. Ecosocialism captures this element, but other terms may work just as well or better toward this end.
Ultimately, what this study shows is that we don’t necessarily need to identify and unite behind a single term. What matters is the broader vision, the political substance, and the concrete policies we advance.
And of course it is important to remember that the struggle does not consist in selecting the right terminology and framing. It consists in building power. That is the main objective and must remain front and centre.
Results from Study 2 for the UK, as published in The Lancet Planetary Health
Be the first to comment