At a time when global warming stokes ever more extreme weather, the global rise of climate-denialist right-wing populism not only impedes effective responses, but also raises the specter of a dystopian fascist future. Continue reading
The radical-reformist Green New Deal (GND) is a more viable approach to the climate emergency than the dominant Green Growth perspective, and it is more politically promising than the Degrowth/Post-capitalist framework. The political obstacles are still formidable in this age of populist denial. Nonetheless, radical reformism is our best bet. Continue reading
You can have a scientifically rigorous diagnosis of climate change, together with a plethora of reasonable policies to tackle the problem, but if your program lacks a strong coalition and powerful political strategy, it will fail. Continue reading
“System Change, Not Climate Change” declares a sign co9mmonly seen at climate marches. Is it true?
That depends on what we mean by “system change.”. If it implies that capitalism is incompatible with a stable climate, the sign is incorrect. And that should be an encouraging conclusion. We have grounds for hope if there is an ecologically sustainable form of capitalism. The prospects for “system change” – for overthrowing capitalism – in the next couple of decades are negligible. Change within capitalism is more within the realm of the politically possible.
Grow or Die?
Eco-socialists, Marxists, most “degrowth” proponents, and many others believe that capitalism is inherently growth oriented. If “grow or die” is the logic of capitalism, the search for a path to sustainability within capitalism is doomed. Economic growth is normally associated with increased throughput of energy and materials, and with the generation of more waste products. Yet infinite growth within a finite earth, we all agree, is impossible. The only environmental option, from this viewpoint, is to fight for a post-capitalist/socialist economy.
But is this logic sound? The idea is that, without growth, capitalism flounders. Static capitalism will fail, it is said, owing to an inevitable decline in investment opportunities, leading to a falling rate of profit. The outcome would be a deflationary spiral of shrinking incomes, growing unemployment, and unpaid debts – ultimately, economic collapse. However, I find this logic unpersuasive.
The real obstacle to ecological sustainability, under capitalism, is not an economistic imperative. Rather, the main impediments are the power of sections of capital and the culture of possessive individualism. Whereas an “inner logic” is immutable, a political-cultural obstacle can be overcome through organization and political action.
“Grow or die” is an incorrect assumption that obstructs climate-change action by suggesting that socialist/postcapitalist revolution is necessary, albeit improbable. If the fight for ecological survival is rather a struggle to shift from one form of capitalism to another, it appears more winnable.
Radical Reformism
Let’s apply these thoughts to a radical Green New Deal that includes constraints on throughputs in the economy and on pollution. Throughput declines, but this change does not necessarily signify a static or stagnant economy. Instead, output shifts in composition and may even increase. What capitalism requires to survive is compatible with such constraints.
Competition among firms continues in the Green New Deal. Those that develop more efficient production processes will undercut their competitors with lower prices. Competition will also continue over the quality of goods and services and over the introduction of new goods. In short, innovation and entrepreneurship remain key to success in the new, sustainable economy. Investment will continue, enhancing efficiency. Workers will not bear the burden of adjustment. Just transition includes a job guarantee, job-sharing and shorter hours of work; productivity growth can be shared by workers. Governments will maximize employment by taxing “bads”, such as resource use and pollution, rather than “goods, such as payroll taxes and profits. Corporate debt will bring some firms down. But massive public investment in the early phase, together with Quantitative Easing will create new opportunities for investment in the green economy. Capitalism will survive constrained throughputs, even though some firms will not. Development will continue, even if growth does not.
Capitalism: A Variegated Phenomenon
A conceptual problem clouds the understanding of alternatives: thinking of capitalism as one specific sort of economy, In reality, capitalism is a variegated economic system with individual types that are shaped by their varying institutional contexts. Capitalism, as classically defined, is an economic system in which free labour (but to what extent decommodified?) works for a wage on privately-owned means of production (but with how much public ownership?) to produce commodities (but with how many public goods?) for sale on the market (but under what sort of restrictive regulations?). The questions posed within the definition underline the reality that capitalism is an umbrella term, under which diverse economies shelter.
Institutional frameworks vary significantly. For example, the Keynesian consensus (1944-late 1970s) rested on a different set of rules than the Washington and Post-Washington consensus (neoliberalism) that succeeded it (1980-present). A Green New Deal would operate under a different set of rules than either of these two.
Institutions thus shape economies; but institutions can be changed. If the rules of an economy permit the exploitation of nature (and labour), then nature (and labour) will be exploited by corporations, to the detriment of society. Why? Because the firms that scrupulously avoid degrading nature (or exploiting labour) will be undercut by competing firms that have no such scruples. The rules of the game (institutions) must be redefined to rule out such exploitation by any actors. And firms can, and will, adjust to the new rules.
Conclusion
The problem posed by climate change is not an implacable economic logic, but a matter of power structures and popular attitudes. It will require a hard struggle to defeat the fossil fuel industry and its supporters, let alone tackle the possessive-individualist mentality. But it can, and must, be done.
Degrowth is a growing intellectual movement among those alarmed by the climate crisis. Its proponents envision a desirable world which has not only come to terms with the ecological crisis, but also is more egalitarian and convivial than our current societies, both in the global North and South. Advocates also provide a cogent critique of economic growth. They contend, perhaps less cogently, that capitalism is the problem because it is inherently growth oriented. One finds, in addition, the analysis of many relevant policies, at both the national and global level, for overcoming the climate/ecological crisis and building an egalitarian society. However, the political strategy for moving from our current situation to the desirable world is underdeveloped. It seems highly improbable that we will witness an allegedly necessary transformation of capitalism in the next decade or two, let alone a nonviolent transformation.
Scope
Some of the terms are confusing. All eco-socialists are degrowthers, but not all degrowthers are eco-socialists (though most are). The degrowth movement is diverse; yet many (probably most) degrowth proponents, together with eco-socialists, believe that system change is needed to safeguard the environment and build an equitable society. Radical degrowth advocates prefer to refer to the future they want as “post-capitalism” rather than post-growth or socialism. “Post-growth” is a suspect term, from their viewpoint. That is because those who believe that capitalism is compatible with ecological sustainability prefer the term “post-growth.” “Post-capitalism,” on the other hand, declares that capitalism is the problem; the term avoids the ideological baggage of socialism, while implying an anti-capitalist orientation.
Origins
Degrowth as a theory and program emerged in France in the 2000s, later spreading to the rest of Europe, and then to North America and the world.
Degrowth has long intellectual roots. The movement sides with the famous Limits to Growth report to the Club of Rome in 1972. André Gorz, a French eco-Marxist who wrote presciently about ecological destruction and capitalism in the 1970s and 1980s, is another important influence.
That the origins of degrowth lie in the universities, and that it remains largely an intellectual movement, is not incidental Many books and articles in the degrowth tradition are demanding to read for those who lack training in the social sciences. One wonders who the audience is for many of the books and articles: mainly activist-scholars, it appears. The academic exigency of publish (in specific refereed journals) or perish seems to have molded the expression of degrowth. There is an effort to popularize the approach, such as in the perplexing slogan found at climate marches – “System Change, Not Climate Change.”
Essence
What is degrowth all about? I think nearly all advocates would agree that degrowth concerns “an equitable downscaling of production and consumption that increases human well-being and enhances ecological conditions at the national and global levels “- with degrowth starting in the rich countries, but soon including, with technological and monetary assistance, the countries of the global South. Proponents promise a good life for all within the planet’s ecological boundaries.
Politics
One problem with this approach, and the criticism that sparks anger in its adherents, is the improbability of achieving this transformative program within a couple of decades (which is the time we have available). The quandary of degrowth is captured by the ironic slogan that was scrawled on the walls of Paris in 1968: “Be realistic. Demand the Impossible.”
There is, in short, a major political problem with degrowth.
Consider the dimensions of this problem.
Conclusion
Degrowth is acute in identifying continuous economic growth as a problem, though its further argument that capitalism is inherently growth oriented is problematical. Its vision of a future society governed by the equitable and democratic downscaling of production and consumption is highly attractive. Degrowth advocates have also developed an array of worthy policies. But the political strategy is lacking, even though degrowthers recognize the political challenges.
If green growth (as previously argued) is inadequate to the climate challenge, degrowth is impracticable. We arrive at an impasse. But this reform-versus-revolution dichotomy is too crude: there is a third alternative (leaving fascist denialism and eco-anarchism aside): a radical-reformist Green New Deal.
Green growth is the dominant perspective on climate mitigation. Governments, international organizations such as the World Bank and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, corporations, and most people in their role as consumers operate within this consensus. Its bold claim is that countries can combine perpetual growth and prosperity with safeguarding ecological conditions for later generations. The claim, however, is dubious. Continue reading
This 55-minute lecture assesses approaches for surmounting the accelerating climate crisis. i focus on the desirability, viability, and potential feasibility of these approaches.
The argument is simple.
It is a harsh truth: no matter how sound the analysis of a problem and no matter how reasonable and progressive the proposed policy solutions, without a workable political strategy, the vision is more in the way of wishful thinking than a practical guide. Continue reading
Richard Sandbrook and Arnd Jurgensen
Richard Sandbrook is Professor Emeritus of Political Science at University of Toronto. Arnd Jurgensen lectures in international relations at University of Toronto. Both are executive members of Science for Peace, whose board members debated the issues discussed here.
One prevalent explanation of the war in Ukraine pins the blame on Russia; the other, which has little institutional backing in the West, but far more outside the West, blames NATO. Proponents of each view largely ignore the opposing interpretation. Both sides agree the war is illegal under international law, but there the agreement ends. For those who blame NATO, their declaration of the illegality of the invasion is largely a formality because, from their viewpoint, NATO provoked Russia to invade Ukraine. For those who blame Russia, the invasion is not only illegal under international law but also a travesty of “unprovoked” aggression. Continue reading
“Disinformation” undoubtedly exists as a form of warfare in this contentious age of artificial intelligence. But how do we know disinformation when we come across it? The obvious danger is that officials and activists will dismiss strongly opposing views as disinformation, not to be taken seriously, or, at worse as potential sedition to be investigated.