A Plea for Realism

Socialists of whatever stripe are often characterized as “unrealistic” by tentative

liberals and stalwart conservatives. When it comes to health care, for example,

those who support Medicare for All are regularly dismissed as reckless utopians.

Thus, Democratic primary candidates like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren

are derided for their supposed lack of concrete plans or inability to “pay for” their

proposals. Not to mention such canards as that they are out to “take away your

healthcare!” Within this tired vein, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, to take another instance,

can call the Green New Deal merely “aspirational,” suggesting that “realism” may require significant compromise on the core principles. It sounds nice, Klobuchar seems to say, but let’s be real. For my part, I’m all for realism. Which is to say that I think everyone, including socialists like myself, should act based on a sober analysis of what is

possible or necessary within their concrete circumstances and do their best to en‐

vision of the strategies that can bring about needed change. That said, I also

find inspiration in the slogan “Be realistic, demand the impossible!” used in

the protests of May 1968. To me, this doesn’t seem like a contradiction.

Let’s consider climate change again. Here in the RPA Mag, Harry Van DerLinden has described at length the desperate state of affairs, arguing that socialists should support the Green New Deal. Essentially, things have to change drastically very soon if we are to avoid genuinely catastrophic changes to the climate and related effects. Even if we make very significant reductions in carbon emissions now on a global scale, there is good reason to believe that the future will be horrifying in many respects. Just recently, a report published in Nature Communications has estimated that 150 million people could themselves underwater by 2050. If this report is correct, virtually all of Vietnam will be inundated daily at high tide if very significant changes are not made on a very tight timeline. In light of the severity of the threat, it seems like a logical and emphatically realistic conclusion that humanity must come together globally and act immediately to halt

carbon emissions as soon as possible.

Yet, in the minds of many, immediate global action is thought to be practically

impossible. Consider that the Green New Deal was defeated in a 57-0 vote in the

U.S. Senate in March. In fact, the vote itself was largely a political stunt orches‐

trated by Republicans, with Senator Mitch McConnell dismissing the plan as a

“far-left wishlist.” Meaningful federal action on climate change appears dead in

the water in the U.S. despite the fact that one of its most populous states is regu‐

larly on are to an extent previously unimaginable. How could one hope to bring

people all across the planet together to act given the intransigence of those in

power? Tragically, we are supposed to believe, the only realistic way of averting

the very worst is itself unrealistic. Possibly, it is thoughts such as these that led

Jonathan Franzen to pen his much-criticized encomium to climate despair. Real‐

ism seems to tell us that hope is, by now, mere wishful thinking and, in fact, dam‐

aging since it may prevent us from, in Franzen’s words, “preparing for the worst.”

But perhaps there is a way of untangling this knot. To start, we must take notice of the presuppositions that lead us to believe that immediate global action on

climate is impossible. Let me list just a few: (1) Politicians are the only people

with the power to make significant change. (2) Ordinary people have power primarily in their roles as voters and consumers. (3) Human beings act largely out of

self-interest and only rarely for the common good or a higher cause. And, (4) an

ecologically sound relationship to the environment is only instrumentally valuable, and not desirable in itself. I grant that, in a world in which the listed propositions 1-4 are true, immediate global action to halt carbon emissions is practical‐

ly impossible.

The only catch is, I don’t think they are true. When people come together to

demand significant change almost anything can happen. Massive street protests in

Lebanon and Iraq in recent weeks forced governments in both countries to resign.

In fact, a good of popular protests all over the globe has led journalist Amy Good‐

man to declare that “a worldwide revolution is underway.” Of course, governments

may always turn to violence to suppress popular revolt and prevent revolutionary

change. But, as Fred Hampton, so eloquently put it long ago: “You can kill the

revolutionary, but you can’t kill the revolution.” So, politicians aren’t the only people with the power to make significant change and the power that ordinary people possess is not limited to their roles as voters or consumers. Rather, they may act collectively in the streets, in their workplaces, in their schools, and so on to change the direction of history.

Furthermore, ordinary people are very often more than willing to forego some

selfish desires and comforts in order to contribute to something greater. Consider

all the volunteers who step up to contribute time, energy, and resources in the

wake of natural disasters. People help out as they can when they understand that

others are in urgent need. In fact, as famed primate researcher Frans de Waal,

among many others, has long argued, altruism is likely an evolved trait that hu‐

man beings share with many other species. The scale of the climate emergency is

great and the scale of the response to it must also be great, certainly. But funda‐

mental human nature and psychology is not an insuperable barrier.

Finally, and because it is necessary to insist, an ecologically sound relation‐

ship to the surrounding environment, what Aldo Leopold termed “the land,” and

to the planet itself is an intrinsically desirable goal. Much of the business of daily

life in our time is consumed with what anthropologist David Graeber refers to as

“bullshit jobs,” mindless immersion in in depressing and narcissistic social media

use, and wasteful and unnecessary consumption of ultimately unfullling gadgets

and products. As the Epicureans argued long ago, life can be both simple and

pleasurable. Indeed, the most pleasurable may be the simplest. If that is so, then a

robust social transformation based on a sound ecological ethic is desirable not

only because it allows us to avert great catastrophe, but also because it will make

us saner and happier people.

Over and over again, we are told to accept misery, degradation, and environ‐

mental catastrophe as insurmountable facets of “reality.” This is the “realism” of

the ruling order and its emissaries. If they don’t want it, it won’t happen. But as

any clear-eyed person can see, it is in fact wishful thinking and solipsistic mega‐

lomania parading as hard-headed commitment to the cold hard truth - the petulant

orders of spoiled children dressed up as facts of the matter. We can reject these

orders. In the name of the planet, we must. The question is only whether we have

the courage to be realistic and demand the impossible.