What Could Ecosocialism Mean in New Mexico?

In Part 1 of this piece, Understanding Place, we explored New Mexico as a social-ecological system. We examined the state’s ecological diversity, the relationships between communities and landscapes, the systems that support daily life, and the many people and institutions that help shape its future. Understanding the system helps reveal important concerns, but it does not tell us how those concerns should be understood, discussed, prioritized, or addressed. This is where ecosocialism becomes useful. Rather than providing predetermined answers, ecosocialism offers a set of questions that can help us examine relationships, scale, power, inequality, and democratic participation within complex social and ecological systems.

Part 1 of this piece, Understanding Place, identified several concerns that often arise when people begin to examine New Mexico as a social-ecological system. The next challenge is understanding how those concerns relate to one another.

Article 2 of this series, What is Ecosocialism?, introduced five questions that ecosocialists often use to examine complex social and ecological challenges. These questions do not provide answers. They provide a way to examine relationships that might otherwise be difficult to see.

The first question concerns relationships. How are different parts of a system connected? A discussion about water, for example, may also involve agriculture, housing, energy, public health, ecosystems, and local economies. Understanding those relationships can reveal consequences that might otherwise be overlooked.

The second question concerns scale. At what scale should a concern be understood? Some issues are primarily local. Others extend across watersheds, ecoregions, transportation networks, or entire states. Looking at a problem through multiple scales can reveal different dimensions of the same challenge.

The third question concerns power. Who influences decisions? Who participates in decision-making? Who is affected by the outcomes? These questions do not assume a particular answer, but they encourage us to consider how decisions are made and whose voices are included.

The fourth question concerns inequality. Do different communities experience the same concern in the same way? Environmental burdens and benefits are often distributed unevenly. Examining inequality helps us understand why communities may experience the same system differently.

The fifth question concerns democratic decision-making. If concerns are interconnected and affect many people, how should decisions be made? What role should communities play in shaping the choices that affect their lives and landscapes?

None of these questions tells us what New Mexico’s priorities should be. Instead, they provide a way to examine concerns that emerge within an interconnected social-ecological system. Asking these questions often reveals something important: legitimate concerns can point in different directions.

That raises another question: What happens when legitimate concerns pull us toward different choices?

The questions introduced in the previous section help us better understand relationships, scale, power, inequality, and democratic decision-making. They also reveal something important: legitimate concerns do not always point toward the same choices. When concerns pull in different directions, communities face questions about trade-offs, participation, and how collective decisions should be made.

This is a normal consequence of living within an interconnected system. Actions taken to advance one objective may affect other parts of the system. Decisions that create benefits in one area can sometimes create costs, risks, or challenges in another.

Consider water. Communities may seek reliable water supplies for homes, agriculture, industry, recreation, and ecological health. Each of these goals may be important, yet they do not always point toward the same decisions. Choices that benefit one use may affect another.

The same pattern appears throughout the system. Housing development may increase access to affordable homes while also affecting transportation networks, water demand, or land use. Energy projects may create economic opportunities while also influencing landscapes and communities. Conservation efforts may protect ecological systems while raising questions about how land and resources are used.

Trade-offs are not evidence that something has gone wrong. They are a normal feature of interconnected systems in which multiple legitimate concerns exist simultaneously. Recognizing trade-offs does not tell us which choice is correct. It simply reminds us that decisions often involve balancing competing needs, values, responsibilities, and priorities.

That raises another question: Who should help make those choices?

The question raised by trade-offs is not simply what decisions should be made. It is also who should help make them. In some situations, decisions affect only a small number of people. In others, they can influence entire communities, landscapes, economies, or ecological systems. The broader the consequences, the more difficult it becomes to treat decisions as matters affecting only a single person, organization, or community.

This does not mean that everyone must agree. Different people and communities may hold different values, priorities, experiences, and perspectives. Disagreement is a normal feature of democratic life. The challenge is that no single actor controls the entire social-ecological system. Governments, businesses, landowners, Tribal nations, nonprofits, community organizations, and residents all influence different parts of the larger whole. Decisions made by one group can affect many others.

When concerns are interconnected, and consequences are shared, questions of participation become difficult to avoid. Who should have a voice? Who should be heard? How should different forms of knowledge and experience be considered? How can communities navigate disagreement while still making decisions?

These questions do not provide easy answers. They do, however, point toward an important democratic principle: people affected by decisions should help shape them. Recognizing this principle does not tell us exactly how collective choices should be made. It simply establishes why participation matters when communities confront shared challenges within an interconnected system.

That raises another question: If participation matters, how should collective choices actually be made?

The previous section established why participation matters. It also revealed that participation alone does not tell us how collective choices should be made. If communities are confronting interconnected concerns, navigating trade-offs, and making collective choices, how should that process occur?

One response comes from the ecosocialist tradition discussed in Article 2. Michael Löwy and other ecosocialist thinkers have argued that societies should collectively determine priorities within ecological limits rather than leaving those decisions entirely to markets, private interests, or administrative institutions. Löwy refers to this idea as Democratic Ecological Planning.

At its core, Democratic Ecological Planning is not a predetermined set of answers. It is a framework for collectively understanding conditions, discussing trade-offs, and determining priorities. It begins with the recognition that ecological systems, communities, economies, and infrastructure are interconnected and that decisions affecting those systems should not be made in isolation from the people who live within them.

Democratic Ecological Planning does not eliminate disagreement. People will continue to hold different values, experiences, and perspectives. Trade-offs will still exist. Difficult choices will still need to be made. The goal is not to remove politics from decision-making, but to provide democratic ways of engaging it. It seeks to create processes through which communities can better understand shared conditions, examine alternatives, deliberate about trade-offs, and determine priorities together.

Whether one agrees with Löwy’s broader political conclusions or not, the underlying question remains relevant: if concerns are interconnected and consequences are shared, how should communities collectively understand and discuss their future?

Part 1 of this article began with a simple question: What might ecosocialism mean in New Mexico?

Answering that question required looking beyond individual issues and spending time understanding the place itself. Along the way, we explored New Mexico’s ecological diversity, the relationships between communities and landscapes, the interconnected systems that shape daily life, and the many people and organizations that influence the state’s future.

Seen through this lens, concerns such as water, energy, housing, transportation, public lands, environmental justice, and stewardship are not isolated issues. They are part of a larger social-ecological system whose components continually influence one another.

Understanding those relationships does not automatically tell us what New Mexico’s priorities should be. It does, however, suggest that determining priorities requires more than focusing on individual issues in isolation.

Democratic Ecological Planning offers a possible framework for approaching that challenge. It begins with the idea that communities should collectively understand the systems they inhabit, the trade-offs they face, and the choices before them.

That raises a practical question: Where does Democratic Ecological Planning begin?

That is the question we will explore in the next article.

The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Red Rose, any individual editor, Albuquerque DSA, the Democratic Socialists of America, or any individual therein.

Do you have thoughts on socialism in New Mexico? Submit your idea here.