Does the threat of climate change require world wide socialist revolution?

1. Socialist outlets: climate crisis requires systemic overthrow, not COPs

Groups such as the World Socialist Web Site and affiliated organizations explicitly argue that repeated UN conferences and market reforms cannot save a livable planet and therefore call for a world socialist revolution to expropriate the super‑rich and remake production globally ^{[1] [5]}. These pieces frame the problem as structural: profit, oligarchy and capitalist growth are portrayed as primary drivers of ecocide and inequality, not mere policy failures ^{[1] [5]}.

2. Ecosocialist and degrowth voices: radical change, sometimes revolutionary, sometimes reformist

Ecosocialist commentators and journals (Climate & Capitalism; Climate & Capitalism’s ecosocialist bookshelf) present research warning of imminent tipping points and argue for degrowth or planned social ownership to prevent catastrophic warming; some contributors endorse revolutionary strategy while others emphasize mass politics and democratic planning as pathways ^{[2] [6]}. These sources often combine scientific concern (tipping points, production gaps) with political prescriptions that range from systemic transformation to democratic socialist planning ^{[2] [6]}.

3. Academic and policy literature: socialist planning as one plausible route, not the only one

Scholarly work reviewed in the provided material acknowledges that the climate crisis demands “massive and rapid retooling” of economies and suggests democratic forms of socialism could meet system‑level requirements, while warning against authoritarian models ^[3]. That analysis stops short of asserting that only a world socialist revolution will succeed; instead it identifies institutional requirements (planning, coordination, sustained collectivist motivation) that might be met by democratic institutions of various kinds ^[3].

4. Arguments for feasibility: planning, technology and institutional design

Proponents of planning argue that scientific planning and democratic control can allocate resources quickly and equitably for large‑scale mitigation and adaptation — examples include calls to combine Neurathian planning with ecological knowledge and proposals for democratic governance of production ^[4]. Such accounts claim the technological means exist but are blocked by profit motives and short political time horizons under capitalism ^{[4] [5]}.

5. Counterpoints and limitations in the available sources

The sources provided are heavily weighted toward socialist and ecosocialist perspectives; they emphasize systemic explanations and revolutionary solutions ^{[1] [2] [5]}. What these selected sources do not provide is broad empirical demonstration that only a worldwide socialist revolution can achieve necessary emission reductions faster or more reliably than coordinated non‑revolutionary strategies; mainstream policy discussions and alternative technological pathways are not represented in the provided set, so claims of exclusivity lack corroboration here — available sources do not present empirical comparisons between revolution and other large‑scale policy mixes.

6. Political realism: strategy, mass movements and democratic considerations

Several texts acknowledge political hurdles: revolution proponents stress building an international working‑class tendency, while more reform‑oriented socialists push for democratic institutions and public ownership as achievable aims ^{[1] [3]}. The practical question of whether a worldwide revolution is politically feasible within the timelines warned by climate science is discussed in political terms (mobilization, class power), not settled by the cited material ^{[2] [7]}.

7. What the reader should take away

The materials show a coherent ecosocialist line: capitalism’s growth logic is blamed for climate risk and many authors conclude deep systemic change is required, with prescriptions from democratic socialist planning to world revolution ^{[1] [2] [6]}. But academic and policy sources in the sample allow other possibilities — democratic planning, rapid mobilization within or across states — and do not establish that a global socialist revolution is the single necessary or inevitable route ^{[3] [4]}. In short: socialist revolution is presented by several outlets as the most reliable solution; the provided reporting and scholarship do not prove it is the only one.

If you want, I can: (a) map specific policy and technological pathways discussed in climate policy literature for rapid decarbonization; (b) contrast empirical evidence on emissions trajectories under different political economies — but I’ll need sources beyond those you supplied.