There is hope! We are laying the groundwork for the “Next Great Revolution” – Gar Alperovitz

This is the speech that Obama should be giving, hasn’t, and never will

No 523 Posted by fw, July 17, 2012

In his keynote address to the Green Party’s National Convention, activist and historian Gar Alperovitz proclaimed – and I’m paraphrasing –“Revolutions begin in rooms like this, with people like you stepping up to transform the most powerful corporate capitalist system in the history of the world. We are laying the groundwork for the “Next Great Revolution”.

Gar Alperovitz’s thesis to support his bold assertion goes something like this –

The current political and corporate capitalist systems in the U.S. are broken. Problems are wicked and cannot be managed the old way. People at the grassroots level sense something is wrong but don’t quite know what to do about it.  But they do know there has to be a better way. The better way, according to Alperovitz, is a bottom-up transformative change. The question is: Can we rebuild a democratic system from the bottom up that changes ownership of capital from big corporations to worker-run businesses and, concurrently, is inherently Green?

Yes we can, he insists, even though acknowledging that the minority of citizen activists who will bring about that change don’t, as yet, have the experience to successfully manage transformative change. The good news is that the foundation of transformative change is already being laid by an explosive growth of worker-owned and co-op companies. Alperovitz points to Cleveland as a model for building entire communities where the 99% benefit as opposed to the existing corporate capitalist system that benefits only the 1%. These kinds of experiments are the only way to build a popular mass movement. However, to achieve this transformative change, citizen activists will have to rise above the current level of relying primarily on “projects and politics” to the level of “existential self-awareness”. And that’s hard to do.

Here’s a 25:16-minute video of Alperovitz’s keynote address, followed by my abridged transcript with added subheadings to facilitate speedy browsing of main ideas.

Gar Alperovitz’s Green Party Keynote: We Are Laying Groundwork for the “Next Great Revolution” Published on July 16, 2012 by Democracy Now.

ABRIDGED TRANSCRIPT

Revolutions begin in rooms like this, with people like you, stepping up to transform the most powerful corporate capitalist system in the history of the world

…you begin [historical change by] fighting small and you expand when the time is right, and you make an impact because the other things are failing. That is what has happened in many, many cases. Revolutions are as common as grass and world history, and they begin in rooms like this… That is how it works. That is how it works. When I say I take you all seriously, first, I’m talking to the person in your personal seat. So when I say I take you seriously, you, maybe more seriously than you take yourself, I mean to say that the beginnings of the next great historic change come from us taking ourselves that seriously. So, I urge — and I think many people here do — but I urge that you sit back and say, am I up to that or am I just doing politics, or am I really up to that? Now that is transforming the most powerful corporate capitalist system in the history of the world. That is what it is about. And to say that I take you seriously is to say that that is what you’re stepping up to, not simply a gesture, not simply a new party, not simply a green movement. It is that, and that is the challenge.

Now, I am very cold-eyed realist. I did run House and Senate staffs. I’ve even done stuff for my pains and for my sins, planning U.N. policy in the State Department before I left that world many years ago. I have been involved in the nitty-gritty of ugly politics. I am no naive guy. And I say again that we have the possibility, if we look at the stage we are at and what is happening to the era and who we are existentially — I am talking to the person in your chair — and if we know who we are and take ourselves that seriously, we have that possibility. So, let me go on.

This is the most important period of American history bar none. The current system is running out of options. Problems are wicked and cannot be managed the old way.

The second thing I want to say is, I don’t think that is always true. But I do think that the emerging era of history into which we are living our lives, the era into which we are living, may well be the most important period of American history bar none. Now, I say it as a historian and others would disagree, but I don’t say it lightly. And when I say bar none, I mean including the American Revolution and including the 1960’s and the Civil War. Whoa, that is a heavy rap, as we used to say in the 1960’s. What I mean is that in many ways, the system is running out of options, and we are beginning to see more and more people aware of the difficulties that cannot be managed the old way.

The crises are systemic. Washington is broken. Either we transform the system or risk violent societal disruptions

Most people know Washington is broken. They have not quite realized that the systemic problems are coming to the surface, that it’s a systemic crisis. You may get ripples of increased gain and jobs and so forth, but you can’t deal with climate change, you can’t deal with unemployment, you can’t deal with poverty, and we keep getting more and more decay. That’s light bulb time. That’s when people begin to asking very serious questions. Now, remember, when I say that I come at it as a historian. You got to throw a couple of decades of your life on the table, not a couple of weeks and not a couple elections. But, there is growing sentiment on all sides that either we transform the system or profound difficulties, violence, probably repression, possibly something like fascism when the violence begins, there is great danger.

Millions of people sense something is wrong. They just don’t know what to do about it. But they do know there has to be a better way

But lots of folks sense something is wrong. The first in my adult life that you find millions of people responding. Listen to the response: Occupy. Occupy was critical, far more important. The American people responded to Occupy. They got it, they know, they know who runs this game. It’s no secret, and it’s a new kind of awareness that something is going on with those big banks and something’s going on with these corporations that don’t quite know how to get a handle on it, but it is not like if we just elect a Democrat it’s all going to be fine and the progressive era will start again. There is a sense that is very deep, and in my view, given the inability to solve the problems, that’s going to be worse, and the pain is going to increase and the number of people saying, there has got to be a better way, something different has got to happen, somehow we’ve got to start in a different place, somehow either we build something new or this thing is a sham.

People at the grassroots level don’t currently have the experience to manage transformative change. They need time to organize

That’s a big deal in history. That’s a big deal when people begin asking those kinds of questions. Now, it takes a long, painful process, but notice this system probably does not reform in the old liberal way for all the reasons we know including the labor movement has collapsed from 35% to down to 7% in the private sector. But, probably it doesn’t have a classic revolution, because government is 30% of the big floor under the economy. You get decay and stagnation, pain and difficulty. That is a very unusual moment in history because it goes on and gives time for people to be aware and to build democratically from the bottom up. If it collapsed tomorrow, the right wing would take over. And if it collapsed to the left, we wouldn’t be prepared. And above all, we wouldn’t know from the bottom of our own experience how to build and run and change and transform the system. This is an era where things are beginning to open up over time. Time for us. Including the person standing here and in your seat.

History teaches us that systems are defined by those who control the wealth. Right now corporate capitalists control the systems, the capital wealth and the power

Let me put it another way—-the third thing I want to say—-systems in history are defined above all by who controls the wealth; no secret. In the feudal era, land was the critical piece. If you had the land and you were the lord, you commanded. In the 19th century, there was the kind of capitalism that was sort of free enterprise. Most of the free enterprise small business capitalists of the 19th century were actually farmers. They ran a small business called a farm. That was a different, maybe a free time in some ways, but a very different time. State socialism was a different way to own capital throughout the system. That is another way to go about it, and we live now in essentially what is called corporate capitalism. And if you look at who owns the system and the power, you all know the income number distribution numbers, they’re pretty obvious. It’s gone from about—-the top 1% has gone from about 10% to 22% and then bobbling around given the recession in the 20% range. Think of that, it’s gone from 10% to 20% in 30 years. Who lost that money? But wealth is even worse.

The top 400 people in America own more wealth that the bottom 185 million Americans

The way you define the system is who owns the capital wealth, and 1% owns just about half all the investment business capital, 1%. 5% owns 70%. And the top — this is a number you got to get your head around, really odd and I checked many times — think about this, the top 400 people, not percent, people, 400 own more wealth now than the bottom 185 million Americans taken together. That is a medieval structure. I don’t mean that rhetorically, I mean that technically that is the way you concentrated wealth in the medieval era, really.

Can we build a democratic system from the bottom up that changes the ownership of capital and is inherently Green? That’s the challenge.

So, the question becomes — and here is the third (sic) thing I think a lot about we do a lot with — is there any sign if you don’t like state socialism, you don’t like corporate capitalism that we can build a democratic system from the bottom up that also changes the ownership of capital and is also inherently Green? How do we do that? We — we.

Yes We Can! In fact we’re already doing it with worker-owned and co-op companies. And we’re going to do a lot more of it

One of the things happening, and this is exciting stuff going on, and the press simply does not cover, they don’t have an interest. If they had any interest, they’d be able to look at the other way because they — but they don’t have any money to do it. The press is being stripped of all capacity to report. But on the ground there are now, what, 10 million people involved a worker-owned companies. Did you know that? 10 million, in America. 130 Million are involved in co-ops and co-op credit unions. 40% of society. Four or five thousand neighborhood owned corporations, thousands of social enterprises. Odd bits and pieces here and there like Sarah Palin’s Alaska; they use the oil revenues as a matter of legal right, everybody gets a piece; it’s a maverick country but there it is. They don’t do that in Texas. We’re going to do that a lot elsewhere when we get to where we’re going to get.

These kinds of experiments, along with the projects and politics, are the only way to build a popular mass movement

If you look carefully on the ground, there are these social enterprises popping up, credit unions, etc., etc. and there are many, many more experiments. Something like 20 states now have legislation before them like the Bank of North Dakota, a state owned bank, and many other states. Another 20 approximately are considering single payer. And here is the issue, as the pain deepens — that’s why the era is critical — as the pain deepens and we have time to build, and we work to build, more and more people begin to see, you’ve got to come up with a new answer. My judgment is — and I think I’m not blowing smoke — those kinds of experiments are the only way to build the popular base, with the politics and the projects, with the politics and the projects.

Cleveland provides a model for building whole communities where the 99% benefit, not just the 1% of capitalist owners

There is a really beautiful thing going on in Ohio in Cleveland, we have been involved with. I was involved with the Youngstown workers in 1977 when the first big steel closing occurred, the workers tried to take over and they got clobbered. But, they organized their politics and got a lot of people involved. So, in Ohio, the idea of worker ownership is a bigger idea. Lots of people understand it. And in Cleveland, building on the Mondragon model, we know about the Mondragon model and other ideas, there are a series of worker owned integrated co-ops in Cleveland in a neighborhood where the average income is $18,000 per family. And they have these co-ops not just standing alone, but linked together with a non-profit corporation and a revolving fund. The idea is to build the community and worker ownership, not just make a couple workers richer, to say the least, not just rich but to build a whole community, and to use the purchasing power of hospitals and universities, tax money in there, Medicare, Medicaid, education money, buy from these guys and build the community. That model and it’s the greenest — for one of the things — the greenest laundry in that part of the country, that uses about one-third of the heat, about a third of the electricity and about a third of the water. They’re on track now to put in more solar capacity that exists — one of the other worker owned companies that exists in the entire state of Ohio. These are not little-thinking co-ops.

There’s another one they’re just about to open which is a greenhouse; 3.25 acres. The greenhouse hydroponic will be the largest in the United States in an urban area, the largest in a worker co-op, worker-owned, in a community building structure, capable of producing something like 5 million heads of lettuce a year, capable of producing something like 5 million heads of lettuce a year. That’s happening. You could do that, and you could force the politicians to help you do that.

To learn more about thousands of other “New Deal” things that are happening in America visit this website

There is a website, Community-wealth.org, [where] you will find thousands of things that are happening on the ground that change the ownership of wealth and begin to green the economy, and it is part of the new deal that we’re going to build forward as we go on through the decay. That’s the direction.

These are the kinds of things that are the prehistory of the next great revolution. And this is how you build it

Those are the kind of things that are the prehistory of the next great revolution. That’s how you build it. You generate the ideas and then you begin to protect national ideas out of real experience and out of real commitment. So, did you happen to notice, we did not nationalize the two big auto companies when those crises came, and we pretty much nationalized the banks before we gave them back. So when those crises come, and they will come, if we’re prepared with a highly democratic vision and if we know something and if we build the politics, I’m not just talking about communities, that’s critical; if you don’t have democratic experience in local communities you’ve got nothing. But, the ideas like Wisconsin pointing to the New Deal, those ideas also generate vision for the long, larger scale when time goes on and we build forward.

So, now that’s also a heavy wrap. I am saying that we are laying the foundations bit by bit in an extremely unusual period of history, the most important moment in history because we’re running out of options, in my view. And mine is suggesting we can take it forward in a positive way.

“The most radical thing you’re going to hear – I think there is hope”

I want to say something far more radical than I have said before. This is the most radical thing you’re going to hear. I think there is hope. I’m no Utopian. I don’t mean it is going to be hard and tough and a lot of stuff is going to go wrong and a lot of pain and a lot of difficulty. But I don’t think they’ve got all the answers and I don’t think that they’ve got all the power and I don’t think they can solve it. And I do believe — the person in your chair, why I take you seriously — can you wrap your heads around, really, I mean, really, that we are in a position to lay down the foundations for the next great transformation? Really? Not just doing token politics, not just building the party. All that is critical. Not just laying the foundations. But really laying the groundwork for transformation into a highly democratic new system beyond the old traditions, one that is sustainable, one that gives a climate change, but also alters the ownership and democratizes wealth. That is our question.

People understand that something different really has to happen

One last thing. I give you just a little fragment more of the book [America Beyond Capitalism: Reclaiming Our Wealth, Our Liberty, and Our Democracy]. Two fragments, actually. This is a really interesting one. They have been polling younger people, people in the range of 18-29. These are people who really will build the next politics; a lot of them in this room. Now, it turns out that in the latest polls, it turns out that when you look at it, about 45%, 43% have a positive reaction to the word capitalism and 49% of a positive reaction to the word socialism. I don’t know that any of those folks actually know what the word socialism means, but the idea that they understand something different really that has got to happen is embedded in those politics.

Projects and politics alone aren’t enough to transform the system. We have to rise above that – to the level of existential self-awareness. And that’s hard to do

But, one last one I saw just the other day, I did a piece for Sojourn Magazine, one of the real radical activists group of religious Christians. One of the pieces of poll data I saw was this, said that 36% of all Americans polled — one of the big polling agencies, not a side one, not a biased one — 36% decided and were quite sure that capitalism, Christianity and capitalism cannot be reconciled. So, my urging, I am pleased to be here, but I don’t think anybody moves the ball like people in this room when they get serious…. [M]y suggestion to you is that we together are in fact capable if we rise to that level of existential self-awareness. Real hard [to do]. Real hard. People want to do projects, they want to do politics, they don’t want to get as serious as it takes to really transform the system. So, that I think that is our challenge and I see a lot of people in this room up and ready to do it.

Thank you for having me.

*****

Gar Alperovitz is professor of political economy at the University of Maryland and co-founder of the Democracy Collaborative.

Fair Use Notice: This blog, Citizen Action Monitor, may contain copyrighted material that may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material, published without profit, is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues. It is published in accordance with the provisions of the 2004 Supreme Court of Canada ruling and its six principle criteria for evaluating fair dealing

Why are all these assaults on the global ecosystem happening? It’s the economy, stupid.

No 260 Posted by fw, August 25, 2011

In a recent interview, Fred Magdoff, professor emeritus of plant and soil science at the University of Vermont, alleges –

“The big question — that environmentalists usually don’t ask — is why all of these assaults on the global ecosystem are happening.  They are usually concerned with one issue or another, global warming, chemical pollution, soil degradation, etc.  But why are they all occurring?  Without digging into how the economic system actually functions in the real world (not theoretically), it isn’t possible to answer the question.”

Which prompted Magdoff to do what scholars do – write a book – which inevitably led to an interview. Here’s a reposting of the interview.

Fred Magdoff on What Every Environmentalist Needs to Know about Capitalism, by Scott Borchert, MRzine, August 24, 2011.

What Every Environmentalist Needs to Know about Capitalism is a short, accessible introduction to the ecological crisis that is intended for a wide audience. Why did you decide to write a book like this, and why now?

Fred Magdoff

In the fall of 2008 I attended a conference where discussion of the environment was prominent, although not the only subject.  As people talked about the variety of problems facing the earth and humanity I had the feeling that they were constantly “beating around the bush.”  So when it was my time to talk, I discarded my notes dealing with ecology and agriculture, and said that I thought a central issue was being ignored.  I explained that I was going to speak about “the bush” that I thought everyone was beating around — that is, the capitalist system and how in its very essence it is destructive of the environment.  This approach was a real stumbling block for most people there.  They were very interesting and innovative people — many would be considered “out of the box” thinkers.  But, I realized that they, and those in the environmental movement in general, were unable to think outside of capitalism.  It appears inconceivable to most of the people I spoke with that somehow there might be a future economic system that wasn’t capitalist.  It seemed to me that this was the critical issue.  I thought that, if they fully understood the role of the normal workings of the capitalist system in causing environmental havoc, people with such great concern for the environment might begin to understand that another social/economic/political system is not just possible, but essential.

Most people will agree that we’re facing a number of environmental problems, from climate change to ocean acidification to species extinction, but how serious is the situation, really?

The world’s environmental problems rise to the level of a major crisis.  This is certainly the most devastating crisis that has been faced by the world’s people.  There is so much damage being done to essentially all aspects of the environment that local, regional, and global ecosystems are being degraded.  We are already seeing severe effects of climate change, ocean acidification, chemical pollution, soil erosion, and so on.  Just to give a few examples: extreme weather events have occurred with greater frequency; yields of a number of crops have been decreased by high temperature, droughts, and floods; the drinking water for many people is contaminated with pesticides and high nitrate levels; people have had to move because of melting permafrost in the far north and the melting of glaciers that once provided reliable water in the dry season.  As the ocean level rises, low-lying coastal agricultural land is becoming contaminated with salt — this is already occurring in regions such as Vietnam’s Mekong Delta.  When all of the effects of environmental degradation are added together, the only conclusion one can come to is that the earth’s systems that support our existence as well as that of many other species are threatened.  Millions of people are already suffering various effects of environmental degradation.

What are some of the proposed solutions to dealing with the ecological crisis, and why do you argue that they are insufficient?

There is no shortage of ideas about what to do — live more simply, purchase “green” products, purchase carbon credits to offset the global warming effects of an airplane trip, blast the atmosphere with particles to reflect sunlight, develop systems for taking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and storing it deep underground, impose a tax on all fossil fuels (a carbon tax), etc.  Some of these make more sense than others.  Others have unknown consequences.  However, they all give the illusion that it is possible to solve the ecological crisis without confronting capitalism as a system.  And it is capitalism’s necessity to grow the economy forever and the single overriding goal of obtaining more and more profits that are at the heart of the environmental problems we face.

Why should the environmental movement be concerned with economic issues at all?

The big question — that environmentalists usually don’t ask — is why all of these assaults on the global ecosystem are happening.  They are usually concerned with one issue or another, global warming, chemical pollution, soil degradation, etc.  But why are they all occurring?  Without digging into how the economic system actually functions in the real world (not theoretically), it isn’t possible to answer the question.

There are some environmentalists that are concerned with economic issues.  In fact, there are professors who consider themselves “ecological economists,” and there is even an institute of ecological economics.  But these people, some of whom are very creative thinkers, are concerned with putting a price on what they call “ecological services” — such as the role wetlands play in cleaning runoff water and providing habitat for wildlife — and suggesting ways that might make certain processes or products with less damage to the environment.  But they have no real critique of the system itself and there is no consideration given to alternative ways to organize and run an economy.

What is the general attitude of the environmentalist movement toward your view, i.e. a systemic, anti-capitalist point of view?  Have attitudes been changing in recent years?

Over the last decade there are increasing numbers of environmentalists who do understand that capitalism is the critical issue.  This is certainly a major step forward. However, most of these people call for what is essentially tinkering with the system — better regulations, more government support for alternatives to fossil fuel energy, trying to factor in the costs of damage done to the environment into the prices of products — while keeping the essence of capitalism intact.

Why not try to reform capitalism along “green” or “sustainable” lines, or aim for a “zero growth” economy?

Truly “green” or “sustainable capitalism” is an oxymoron.  The very heart of the system — production of goods and services to make profits, which propels growth — excludes the possibility of capitalism being anything other than a system that has environmental destruction as a by-product.  Of course, it’s possible to have such things as better environmental regulations and use of fewer toxic chemicals.  We now have sewage treatment plants to treat the waste of cities and the rivers are therefore cleaner.  But the need to grow — to produce and sell more and more stuff while recognizing no boundaries — and having profits as the driving force and overwhelming goal of production means the system will always be environmentally destructive.

Zero growth is an economic disaster in a capitalist economy.  At this time (August 2011), the United States economy has been growing for more than two years since the official end of the Great Recession.  But it’s growing too slowly to provide enough jobs to re-employ the fired workers and get anywhere near full employment.  We have some 28 million people either unemployed (14 million), underemployed, or so discouraged that they have stopped looking for work (another 14 million between them).  Sustained high rates of economic growth are needed to get anywhere near what might be considered full employment.  The only way that zero economic growth can be consistent with satisfying people’s basic needs — physical and non-physical — is to have a different economic/social system in which production is done only for the purpose of providing these needs to the population instead of production for the purpose of selling stuff (regardless of its social value) and perpetually making profits.

Who are the kinds of people you hope will read this book, and what effect do you hope it will have?

Our hope is that this book will have an impact on people who already understand how serious the environmental problems are for humans as well as many other species.  These people don’t need to be convinced about the environmental disaster — although there is enough information in the book to bring a deeper understanding of the issues to all who read it — but rather need to grasp how what is happening is connected to the basic way our economic system functions.  It’s not an aberration — but rather a natural outcome.

You’re also the co-author of The ABCS of the Economic Crisis(with Michael D. Yates), which is a short introduction to the causes of the 2008 financial crisis and ensuing recession – what is the relationship between that book and this new one?

Both books are aimed at a general audience and written to be accessible to everyone interested in these subjects.  Both are also in the tradition of Monthly Review magazine as well as Monthly Review Press books — they try to get to the root of issues.  This means putting events into context to help people understand not only what problems or issues are occurring, but, more importantly, why they occurring and what might be done about them.

How are movements and governments in other countries responding to the ecological crisis, compared to in the United States?  What can people in the U.S. and other core capitalist countries do?

There is a huge amount of activity around the world over concern with, and how to improve, the environment.  One indication of this concern was the 2010 World Peoples’ Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth held in Bolivia.  Some 30,000 people attended representing many countries, organizations, and indigenous groups.  Many of those attending were from organizations engaged in actions around environmental justice and stopping the pillage of the earth as well as helping people cope with the consequences.  One of the people I met was from the Alaska tribal council and told of helping to move an entire native Alaska village because sea level increases and melting permafrost under their village made another location necessary.

There is much that can be done now, in the U.S. and other core capitalist countries.  For example, some groups are pushing for a carbon tax with money returned on an equal per capita basis.  This would slow down energy use without penalizing the poor who tend to use lower amounts of energy than the wealthy — they would receive more money than the extra they pay for the tax.  Just a few days ago people were arrested outside the White House while protesting the proposed building of a pipeline to carry oil from the tar sands of Alberta Canada to Texas.  Recovery of oil from the tar sands is an especially damaging process.  There is no lack of organizations that are doing meaningful things to help the environment.  What there is, however, is a lack of groups and a movement that understand that the environmental problems are deeply embedded in the economy and that a different way of interacting with the economy, other people, and the environment is necessary.

---

Fred Magdoff is co-author of the recently released What Every Environmentalist Needs to Know about Capitalism: A Citizen’s Guide to Capitalism and the Environment, with John Bellamy Foster.  He is professor emeritus of plant and soil science at the University of Vermont.  His other recent books include Agriculture and Food in Crisis (edited with Brian Tokar), The ABCs of the Economic Crisis  (with Michael Yates), and The Great Financial Crisis (with John Bellamy Foster).  Scott Borchert  works for Monthly Review Press .  He may be contacted at <scott@monthlyreview.org >.

RELATED POST

• Why you can’t “green” capitalism. “You can’t “green capitalism”. Not only is the phrase oxymoronic, it’s just plain moronic. And it’s certainly not sustainable.”

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog, Citizen Action Monitor, may contain copyrighted material that may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material, published without profit, is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues. It is published in accordance with the provisions of the 2004 Supreme Court of Canada ruling and its six principle criteria for evaluating fair dealing

Why you can’t “green” capitalism

No 178 Posted by fw, May 21, 2011

Seems like everyone these days is hopping on the green super-train to sustainability. The words “green” and “sustainability” are getting lots of play in the popular press and are on the lips of every politician, tripping over one another in their mad rush to attract “green and clean” technologies to their regions to spur economic development and job growth.

Not so fast, says ecological historian, Dr Richard Smith, Research Associate of the Institute for Policy Research & Development. You can’t “green capitalism”. Not only is the phrase oxymoronic, it’s just plain moronic. And it’s certainly not sustainable.

Smith says as much in his paper, Green capitalism: the god that failed, published in real-world economic review, issue no. 56, 11 March 2011, pp. 112-144. Starting at the end, here are his concluding remarks, with my sub-headings and text highlighting added for enhanced emphasis and readability purposes:

“We can’t shop our way to sustainability”

We can’t shop our way to sustainability because the problems we face cannot be solved by individual choices in the marketplace. In fact most of the ecological problems we face from global warming to deforestation, to overfishing, to pollution, to species extinction and many others, are way beyond the scope of companies, industries, even countries. They require concerted, large-scale national and international action. And they require direct economic planning at global, national and local levels.

Exxon Mobil is not about to sacrifice its shareholders merely to save humans

For example, the world’s climate scientists tell us we’re doomed unless we shut down the coal industry and sharply reduce our consumption of all fossil fuels. But even the world’s largest corporations, such as Exxon Mobil, can’t afford to take such losses, to sacrifice its owners — merely to save the humans. Corporations can’t make the socially and ecologically rational decisions that need to be made to save the humans because they represent only private particular interests, not the social and universal interests of humanity, the environment, and future generations.

“The only way to align production with society’s interests is to do so directly“

But society can afford to close down coal, retrench oil production and socialize those losses. Society can ration oil, like we did during World War II, and society can redeploy labor and resources to construct the things we do need to save the humans, like renewable energy, public transit, energy efficient housing for all, and many other social needs that are currently unmet by the market system. In the final analysis, the only way to align production with society’s interests and the needs of the environment is to do so directly. The huge global problems we face require the visible hand of direct economic planning to re-organize the world economy to meet the needs of humans and the environment, to enforce limits on consumption and pollution, to fairly ration and distribute goods and services we produce for the benefit of each every person on the planet, and to conserve resources so that future generations of humans and other life forms can also live their lives to the full.

The abolition of private property in the means of production is required to prevent the collapse of civilization

All this is inconceivable without the abolition of capitalist private property in the means of production and the institution of collective bottom-up democratic control over the economy and society. And it will be impossible to build functioning national and global economic democracies unless we also abolish global economic inequality. This is both the greatest moral imperative of our time and it is also essential to winning world-wide popular support for the profound changes we must make to prevent the collapse of civilization. A tall order to be sure. But we will need taller waterproof boots if we don’t make this happen. If Paul Hawken, Lester Brown, Francis Cairncross and Paul Krugman have a better plan, where is it?

What an ending! Under what circumstances can you, dear reader, ever see the transformation of a capitalist system to an eco-socialist one? And what, one wonders, will all the dedicated, industrious members of Transition Initiatives (TIs) make of this passage: “. . . most of the ecological problems we face from global warming to deforestation, to overfishing, to pollution, to species extinction and many others, are way beyond the scope of companies, industries, even countries. They require concerted, large-scale national and international action. And they require direct economic planning at global, national and local levels.” In this daunting context, what meaningful niche role will small TIs — sans significant economic and diverse human resource expertise — be able to carve out for themselves? But that’s a subject for a future post.

Dr Smith’s full 33-page report is, to say the least, thought-provoking and well worth the time and cognitive investment. At the very least, read the Abstract, which follows:

In rejecting the antigrowth approach of the first wave of environmentalists in the 1970s, pro-growth “green capitalism” theorists of the 1980s-90s like Paul Hawken, Lester Brown, and Francis Cairncross argued that green technology, green taxes, eco-conscious shopping and the like could “align” profit-seeking with environmental goals, even “invert many fundamentals” of business practice such that “restoring the environment and making money become one and the same process.” This strategy has clearly failed.

I claim first, that the project of sustainable capitalism was misconceived and doomed from the start because maximizing profit and saving the planet are inherently in conflict and cannot be systematically aligned even if, here and there, they might coincide for a moment. That’s because under capitalism, CEOs and corporate boards are not responsible to society, they’re responsible to private shareholders. CEOs can embrace environmentalism so long as this increases profits. But saving the world requires that the pursuit of profits be systematically subordinated to ecological concerns: For example, the science says that to save the humans, we have to drastically cut fossil fuel consumption, even close down industries like coal. But no corporate board can sacrifice earnings to save the humans because to do so would be to risk shareholder flight or worse. I claim that profit-maximization is an iron rule of capitalism, a rule that trumps all else, and this sets the limits to ecological reform — and not the other way around as green capitalism theorists supposed.

Secondly, I claim that contrary to green capitalism proponents, across the spectrum from resource extraction to manufacturing, the practical possibilities for “greening” and “dematerializing” production are severely limited. This means, I contend, that the only way to prevent overshoot and collapse is to enforce a massive economic contraction in the industrialized economies, retrenching production across a broad range of unnecessary, resource-hogging, wasteful and polluting industries, even virtually shutting down the worst. Yet this option is foreclosed under capitalism because this is not socialism: no one is promising new jobs to unemployed coal miners, oil-drillers, automakers, airline pilots, chemists, plastic junk makers, and others whose jobs would be lost because their industries would have to be retrenched — and unemployed workers don’t pay taxes. So CEOs, workers, and governments find that they all “need” to maximize growth, overconsumption, even pollution, to destroy their children’s tomorrows to hang onto their jobs today because, if they don’t, the system falls into crisis, or worse. So we’re all onboard the TGV* of ravenous and ever-growing plunder and pollution. [*French: Train à Grande Vitesse, meaning high-speed train]. And as our locomotive races toward the cliff of ecological collapse, the only thoughts on the minds of our CEOS, capitalist economists, politicians and labor leaders is how to stoke the locomotive to get us there faster. Corporations aren’t necessarily evil. They just can’t help themselves. They’re doing what they’re supposed to do for the benefit of their owners.

But this means that, so long as the global economy is based on capitalist private/corporate property and competitive production for market, we’re doomed to collective social suicide and no amount of tinkering with the market can brake the drive to global ecological collapse. We can’t shop our way to sustainability because the problems we face cannot be solved by individual choices in the marketplace. They require collective democratic control over the economy to prioritize the needs of society and the environment. And they require national and international economic planning to re-organize the economy and redeploy labor and resources to these ends. I conclude, therefore, that if humanity is to save itself, we have no choice but to overthrow capitalism and replace it with a democratically-planned socialist economy.

Dr Smith invites comments on his paper on this web page.

RELATED READING

• Report: Beyond Growth, or Beyond Capitalism? also by Dr Richard Smith, Institute for Policy Research and Development, February, 2010. This 25-page report argues that the idea of a steady-state capitalism is based on untenable assumptions, starting with the assumption that growth is optional rather than built into capitalism.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog, Citizen Action Monitor, may contain copyrighted material that may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material, published without profit, is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues. It is published in accordance with the provisions of the 2004 Supreme Court of Canada ruling and its six principle criteria for evaluating fair dealing