How popular are post-capitalist/socialist ideas and policies?
Here's a list of studies and surveys with some striking results...
1. A survey shows that a majority of people around the world (56%) agree with the statement “Capitalism does more harm than good”. In France it is 69%, in India it is 74%.
3. A study of the US, Canada, Australia and the UK found that in all four countries, a majority of respondents aged 18-34 (54-61%) agreed that “socialism will improve the economy and well-being of citizens”.
4. A study of US public opinion found that 62% of respondents aged 18-30 hold favourable views of socialism. And more Democrats have positive views of socialism (67%) than capitalism (50%).
5. A survey of youth climate movement groups found that more than half say that the root cause of the climate and ecological crisis is “a system that puts profit over people and planet”. 89% of this group specified the system as capitalism.
The job guarantee is highly popular in polls. In the UK, 72% of people support it. In the US, it's 78%, and in France it’s 79%. There are few policies that enjoy such widespread support, and research shows it can appeal strongly to working-class voters who otherwise feel alienated from the political process.
This study finds that US Americans prefer workplace democracy (where workers own shares, are represented on boards, and elect their managers), even while recognizing this requires more responsibility.
Polls show that universal public services are popular in the UK (substantial majorities want public control over healthcare, education, energy, rail, water, postal services, parks, etc.). In the US, 64% of people support universal healthcare, while 62-64% support a public option for housing, internet and childcare.
Polling in the UK shows that 74% of people support permanent rent controls. In the US, polls in Massachusetts and California show majority support for rent controls (71% and 55% respectively).
Polling in the US shows that 72% of people support a living wage. In the UK, 87% believe that companies should pay a living wage if they can afford to.
Data from 40 countries reveal that people tend to prefer relatively low pay ratios (around 4:1) between CEOs/ministers and low-skilled workers, dramatically lower than real-existing ratios. This conclusion holds across demographic groups.
A study of European citizens’ assemblies found that sufficiency policies enjoy very high approval rates (93%). The study also found that sufficiency objectives achieved through regulatory policies had the highest support.
In Europe, 71% of people support democratizing international institutions such as the UN and IMF with population-proportionate voting shares (in the US, 58% of people support).
A WID study shows strong majorities in Europe and the US support high-income countries compensating low-income countries for climate damages, funding renewable energy in low-income countries, and supporting low-income countries to adapt to climate change.
Approximately 80-90% of people in high- and medium-income countries believe there should be a global tax on millionaires to finance low-income countries, and call for a global democratic assembly on climate change. 88-91% believe that national shares of the carbon budget should be in proportion to population, and 72-82% believe that countries that have emitted more since 1990 should receive a smaller share.
Who is driving climate breakdown? Buckle up for some striking data... 🧵
1. First, global North countries are responsible for 86% of cumulative emissions in excess of the safe planetary boundary.
China is responsible for 1%. The rest of the South and peripheral Europe is responsible for 13%.
These results arise from taking the safe carbon budget and dividing into national "fair shares" on a per-capita basis, and then assessing national emissions against national fair-shares.
2. This chart uses the same data.
The global South *as a group* is actually still within its fair share of the planetary boundary (350ppm), since the few "overshooting" countries are compensated for by "undershooting" countries.
By contrast, the global North has burned through not only its fair-share of the planetary boundary, but also its fair share of the 1.5C budget AND its 2C budget.
3. Here's the same data at the country level. The red countries are in overshoot, the green countries are still within their fair-shares.
I was honoured to write this for @tri_continental Pan Africa:
"One of the most damaging myths about the ecological crisis is that humans as such are responsible for it. In reality it's caused almost entirely by the states and firms of the imperial core." thetricontinental.org/pan-africa/new…
@tri_continental Because everyone always wonders about the China data, yes, as of 2019 (the final year of data in our analysis), China was responsible for only 1% of global emissions in excess of the planetary boundary. globalinequality.org/responsibility…
@tri_continental Curious users can check out the data for China and any other country they want using the interactive tools here: goodlife.leeds.ac.uk/related-resear…
About Spain's tourism problem... it seems intractable but the solutions are actually quite straightforward.
First, we need to recognize that tourism is not a good allocation of real resources and labour. It means producing goods and services that do not themselves directly benefit the local population. In fact, they are actively harmful to locals... gobbling up public space, destroying neighbourhoods, driving housing prices up, worsening climate change, etc.
It is much more rational and beneficial to allocate all this labour toward creating things that people actually need, like public services, affordable housing, renewable energy, and so on.
So, why do tourism at all? Two main reasons.
One reason is to get foreign currency. In this sense, tourism is basically an export (but where the export factories are plunked disastrously right into the middle of your historic downtowns). Why do exports? To pay for imports.
The solution here is simple: reduce unnecessary imports. Reduce luxury goods imports (these only benefit the rich), reduce car/SUV imports (build up your public transit system instead), etc. There are many options here. This reduces pressure for obtaining foreign currency.
A second reason to do tourism is to create jobs. This one seems like a strong argument but in fact it's not.
The obvious solution here is to implement a public job guarantee. Not only does this solve unemployment (a major problem in Spain), it mobilizes labour around socially and ecologically useful things that benefit society, rather than allocating labour to useless things like serving tourists.
In other words, there are simple alternatives to the two main reasons people cite for needing tourism. Any political party that realises this can ride the current wave of popular discontent and translate that energy into real, practical social improvements.
This is not to say that tourism should be abolished, far from it. But it's clear to everyone that extreme dependency on tourism is socially and ecologically destructive and it has to stop.
And for anyone wondering how to go about the practical business of actually scaling down the tourism industry, the answer is the same as for reducing any damaging industry (eg, fossil fuels, luxury goods, SUVs, etc): credit guidance! jasonhickel.org/blog/2024/8/20…
And for the avoidance of all doubt, tourism is an absolute, unmitigated climate catastrophe: nature.com/articles/s4155…
I'm excited to announce this new paper we have in The Lancet Planetary Health.
We show that the world is not moving towards a just and ecological future for all. Growth in energy and material use is occurring primarily in countries that do not need it and is not occurring fast enough (or is declining) in countries that do need it.
The capitalist world economy is not delivering for human needs and ecology. A substantial redistribution of energy and material use is required—both within countries and between them.
1. Globally, we use *a lot* of energy and materials. In fact, we use at least 2.5x more than would be needed to ensure decent living standards (DLS) for all.
DLS includes universal healthcare, education, modern housing, nutritious food, sanitation systems, transit, fridge-freezers, phones, computers, etc.
2. And yet, billions of people are denied access to DLS.
We find that 50% of nations do not have access to enough energy to ensure DLS, given existing national distributions. And for 20 of these countries, their consumption is actually *declining*. This is an extremely bad situation.
Hi everyone, I'm excited to announce this new project: a website dedicated to research and data on imperialism and inequality. You're going to love this... (links in thread below):
It includes 14 topics and more than 100 interactive graphs, drawing on recent research published by our team and others, including on unequal exchange, gender, climate, military power, financial flows...
I did this interview for @rosaluxglobal with several brilliant colleagues. We talk about liberalism, socialism, strategy, and the urgent need to overcome the capitalist law of value. I think you'll like it: rosalux.de/en/news/id/535…
"We live in a world of immense productive potential, and yet we face deprivation and ecological breakdown. Why? Because under capitalism, production only happens when and where it’s profitable. Social and ecological needs are secondary to the returns to capital."
"The law of value explains why we experience shortages of socially and ecologically essential goods, even in an age of unprecedented productive capacity. If something isn’t profitable, it doesn’t get made — no matter how necessary it is."