Does the left want paternalistic technocracy, or democratic socialism?

Exclusive: Pollution targets set out alongside nature recovery projects to allay concerns over housebuilding

Does the left want paternalistic technocracy, or democratic socialism?

_**Change Everything: How we can rethink, repair and rebuild society** _(second edition, 2025). by Natalie Bennett. Wilton Square Books, £10.99. Former Green Party leader and peer, Natalie Bennett has outlined her political philosophy in this book whose first edition appeared last year. She argues that there is a distinctive Green political philosophy, distinct from but sharing many characteristics with socialism. I’ll return to that claim but, first, what does the book cover? In the first, short section, she identifies some key problematic aspects of “the world we have made”. This is one where despite ‘abusive overproduction’ wrecking the climate and nature, the economic and political powers have failed to solve the problems of extreme inequality, poverty and ill health. She sees neoliberalism and social democracy (which since the cold war has been distinct from socialism) as sharing in three fallacies: the need for economic growth, the centrality of paid labour, and the promotion of competition. In the rest of the book she covers a number of topics under the broad headings of, Active Freedom, True Prosperity, Healthy Life, and Shared Resilience. There is much to agree with in the book. Bennett writes well, accessibly and with a strong ethical sensibility. Yet she is much better at outlining the nature of the problems to be overcome than suggesting feasible solutions. Where she does, I disagree with some of the few policy remedies she advocates. For instance, Universal Basic Income (on which she memorably came unstuck in an interview when party leader), and ‘helicopter money’, for example would both give money to those who don’t need it and tend among other things to have the effect of boosting reckless consumption. Theoretically the excess money could be taken back in taxation but I fear that is unlikely to happen in practice. Other proposals are sensible, land value tax, for example. However, there is little here that is very distinctive – much of what she says could have been said by someone like Tony Benn or John McDonnell. This is where her thesis that she is outlining a distinctive, green political philosophy falls down. It is not enough to outline the problems and make some selective, and sketchy suggestions, and there is nothing that she says that could not be subsumed under eco-socialism, which, however, would normally have a more developed theoretical basis. A political philosophy needs to identify the problems it is concerned with and then go on to identify their causative mechanisms and ethical and feasible remedies. Bennett’s book lacks this – for example, although there are passing references to Tim Jackson and Kate Raworth’s books, there is no sustained treatment of the drivers of growthism, let alone capitalist accumulation. The claim that her green political philosophy is distinct from socialism is also problematic. Certainly socialism has been associated with ‘productivism’ and domination over nature, both in its Western European and Communist variants. But there is a strong alternative socialist tradition, that we would now term eco-socialist, found in a long line of thinkers from the English Diggers, via the Chartists, some of the writings of both Marx and Engels (especially the later Marx), William Morris, Clarion, Raymond Williams1 and prime movers of the late twentieth century environmental movement, such as Rachel Carson and Barry Commoner2, as well as ecologically orientated trade union figures such as Jack Mundey (an Australian communist) and Mike Cooley (a founding member of the CPB-ML, best known for his work on the Lucas plan and in the Greater London Social Enterprise Board)3, and further afield, Fidel Castro4 or Colombia’s Gustavo Petro5. What all of these share is the opposition to the commodification of people and of nature, and a vision of an alternative civilisation, glimpses of which are certainly to be found in Natalie Bennett’s book. Maybe there is a distinctively green political philosophy, but it isn’t really to be found here. For that, I’d suggest reading one of the burgeoning collection of books on degrowth6 (in Natalie’s blog she recently reviewed Tim Parrique’s ‘Slow Down or Die’ – she demurs at the term ‘degrowth’ though), which go into more detail while presenting an articulated political philosophy. For an articulated green-left policy portfolio, though, you would have to look elsewhere, and I’d not so humbly commend our own Getting Real collection. The book comes at an interesting time for her (and my) party, with a new, self-proclaimed eco-populist leadership, articulating a left wing message, and a surge of members, many of them coming from the socialist wing of the Labour Party. Perhaps paradoxically, I fear that there is insufficient emphasis on the existential crisis of ecosystem overshoot and collapse, surely a defining axiom of green politics – but then I’m a degrowth Marxist. However, notwithstanding my criticisms, the green left is the place to be, and where an adequate political praxis (unified theory and practice) could come from. _Mark Burton_ 1 I explored this tradition in this article: Burton, M. (2019). Degrowth: The realistic alternative for Labour. _Renewal_ , _27_(2), 88–95. https://www.lwbooks.co.uk/renewal/27/degrowth-the-realistic-alternative-for-labour, as did Hilary Wainwright, (1999). Raymond Williams and Contemporary Political Ecology. _Keywords_ , _2_ , 81–93. https://raymondwilliamssociety.files.wordpress.com/2017/09/keywords2.pdf 2 John Bellamy Foster explores the lineage from Marx and Engels to the modern environmental movement Bellamy Foster, J. (2020). _The return of nature: Socialism and ecology_. Monthly Review Press. 3 For Mike Cooley, see https://revsoc21.uk/2020/10/03/obituary-mike-cooley-architect-and-bee/ and for Jack Mundey, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Mundey. Mundey has been credited with the introduction of the term ‘Green’ as a political category. 4 Speech to the 1992 UN Rio conference. https://misiones.cubaminrex.cu/en/articulo/history-fidel-castros-speech-un-conference-environment-and-development-1992 5 Petro stood alone in rejecting the Belem COP fudge https://www.defenddemocracy.press/colombias-petro-says-he-stood-alone-in-rejecting-the-cop30-final-declaration/ See this analysis of his thinking https://themindness.substack.com/p/capital-or-life-president-gustavo 6 There is quite a choice. Kallis, G. (2018). _Degrowth_. Agenda Publishing. Liegey, V., & Nelson, A. (2020). _Exploring degrowth: A critical guide_. Pluto Press. Schmelzer, M., Vetter, A., & Vansintjan, A. (2022). _The future is degrowth: A guide to a world beyond capitalism_. Verso. Hickel, J. (2022). _Less is more: How degrowth will save the world_. Penguin Books. Parrique, T. (2025). _Slow down or die: The economics of degrowth_ (C. Benoit, Trans.; First publication 2025 by Europa Editions). Europa Editions. ### Share this: * Click to share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon * Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X * Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook * Click to print (Opens in new window) Print * Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email * Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn * Like Loading... ### _Related_

Rapa Nui, also known as Easter Island, is often portrayed in popular culture as an enigma. The rationale is clear: The tiny, remote island in the Pacific features nearly 1,000 enormous statues—the moa...

Our thirst for AI is fuelling a new construction wave: of giant data centres. But can our electricity and water systems cope — and what will the neighbours say?

'Política para supervivientes' es una carta semanal de Iñigo Sáenz de Ugarte exclusiva para socios y socias de elDiario.es con historias sobre política nacional. Si tú también lo quieres leer y recibi...

### In aliis linguis * Castellano * Català _(Translated by Mark Burton from the original in Spanish, which is part of a series of reflections for and on the Beyond Growth Conference held in Madrid in September 2025.)_ The _Beyond Growth Spain_ Conference document offers us a promising future: less production, less consumption… but, curiously, more public services, more rights, more democracy, more of everything good and none of the bad. In other words Deluxe Degrowth. We know that the current model does not work, and this _Declaration_ lists the usual suspects: capitalism, patriarchy, colonialism, extractivism… all the villains of the comic book gathered in the same cartoon. So far, so good. But the document avoids what is uncomfortable. Because degrowth implies something very simple in our day to day experience: it implies less of the many things that we are used to. Yet instead of saying it clearly, the text takes refuge in euphemisms: ‘democratically planned eco-social transition’, ‘democratic reorganisation of the economy’, ‘living better with less’. It sounds good, almost relaxing, like an advert for an organic yoghurt. These are expressions that generate passive hope in the listener, just like others such as: ‘they’ll come up with something’, ‘someone will think of something’, ‘the politicians are working on it’, ‘let’s not catastrophise, it’s not that bad’, etc. The problem is that the ‘less’ is rarely made explicit. It is disguised under with a ‘more’: more free time, more universal services, more care, more deliberative democracy. The result is an all-you-can-eat political buffet: we will have fewer resources, but there is an extensive menu of rights and public services. Where will all this come from in a world with less energy and materials? It doesn’t matter; it seems that the important thing is to remain optimistic and not scare anyone. As the document clearly states, continuing with the current system is leading us into a nightmarish and barbaric situation where the worst human instincts can be unleashed, putting our lives and those of our loved ones at risk. However, real degrowth is not a fairy tale: it means giving up habitual comforts, making material sacrifices and dealing with social conflicts. And because we don’t want to talk about that —because it scares us— we turn it into a sugar-coated story, full of promises and euphemisms. And that’s where the greatest danger lies: when those fairy-tale expectations are frustrated—because they will be frustrated—people will be left in the hands of the most ferocious populism of the most reactionary sector. Then it is very likely that the friendly discourses of degrowth will be swept away by authoritarian and disingenuous proposals that will promise a return to the past in exchange for the _sacrifices_ necessary to achieve it. The risk is clear: that degrowth will remain trapped between unspoken fears and the euphemisms that disguise it. Amidst all that, in conferences we continue to split hairs and to draft epic declarations, as if change could be achieved without any struggle and with online assemblies. The most honest thing would be to stop sanitising the message so much and to recognise what degrowth will really mean. The good and the bad. Perhaps only then can we talk seriously and go forward in the right direction, avoiding the worst consequences of continuing on the path of the current system. Maia Koenig. Click to rate this post! [Total: 0 Average: 0] You must sign in to vote

Given the gravity of the present situation, we should be very careful about what we think we know about growth. if I’m wrong about degrowth, then you can kick-start the economy back again to continue growing business-as-usual. If Daniel Susskind is wrong, on the other hand, it will cost us the biosphere.

At the end of a politically hectic year, the Green Party under Zack Polanski is one of the few genuine success stories on the British left. How much potential is there in a future Red-Green alliance?