criticised WWF/ZSL for failing to identify capitalism as the “crucial (and often causal) link” between the destruction of nature and galloping levels of consumption.
“By naming capitalism as a root cause,” wrote Pigott, “we identify a particular set of practices and ideas that are by no means permanent nor inherent to the condition of being human” and that “if we don’t name it, we can’t tackle it”.
Capitalism, according to Jason Hickel, academic and author of Less Is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World (Penguin, 2020), has three main defining characteristics: enclosure and artificial scarcity, perpetual expansion, and a lack of democracy, insisting “democratic principles are rarely allowed to operate in the sphere of production, where decisions are made overwhelmingly by those who control capital”.
As a socialist, I think it’s important to point out that ending capitalism isn’t the panacea for climate change that this article is alluding too.
Alternative forms of economic organizational hierarchies can be just as damaging unless protecting the environment is foundational to their economic principles.
Socialism isn’t inherently more environmentally friendly, it’s just a different way to organize productive forces, with the entire goal being increasing production capabilities until we have reached a post scarcity society.
Even in the few examples of command economies we’ve seen throughout history, we don’t see a more environmentally conscious society. What we typically see is rampant industrialization and an increase in production without regard for consumption.
Now I’m not claiming that economic systems do not matter, or attempting a “both sides” argument. Clearly a command economy has more ability to tackle climate change, but only if environmentalism is made a foundational priority.
If we just label capitalism as the enemy, and then carry on as other socialist governments have before… We very well may make huge leaps on quality of life for the majority, increase industrialization in the global south, and build a more equitable world, but still end up killing the planet.
The import part is “can be just ad damaging”. Which is why we have to come up with a better alternative.
As for a command economy. That has proven itself to be a somewhat good idea in times of war, as it allows for quick massive changes. Certainly intressting when you want to transition to renewables, built up public transport everywhere and so forth. However in 1989 Russia had per capita emissions of 16.3t per capita making it one of the worsed countries in the world on that metric. Besides some small countries only the UAE, US, Canada and Czechia had higher emissions. Czechia also being a command economy. All of that while the material quality of life in the Soviet Union was worse then many countries in the West.
The problem with that is that command economies turn into dictatorships, when they lack control mechanisms. The only examples I can think of are war economies, which have been rather command economy like and have not turned into full dictatorships. Those however have also been limited.
So imho the best way of doing it, is to have the government set limits and have a mix of state owned companies, workers cooperatives, consumer cooperatives and some companies run by foundations in it as well. That way you avoid the concentration of power held by private companies and especially command economies. It also comes with a good set of checks and balances and can be adapted to local needs. The good part is we also know all of this works at least on a small scale.
As a socialist, I think it’s important to point out that ending capitalism isn’t the panacea for climate change that this article is alluding too.
Alternative forms of economic organizational hierarchies can be just as damaging unless protecting the environment is foundational to their economic principles.
Socialism isn’t inherently more environmentally friendly, it’s just a different way to organize productive forces, with the entire goal being increasing production capabilities until we have reached a post scarcity society.
Even in the few examples of command economies we’ve seen throughout history, we don’t see a more environmentally conscious society. What we typically see is rampant industrialization and an increase in production without regard for consumption.
Now I’m not claiming that economic systems do not matter, or attempting a “both sides” argument. Clearly a command economy has more ability to tackle climate change, but only if environmentalism is made a foundational priority.
If we just label capitalism as the enemy, and then carry on as other socialist governments have before… We very well may make huge leaps on quality of life for the majority, increase industrialization in the global south, and build a more equitable world, but still end up killing the planet.
The import part is “can be just ad damaging”. Which is why we have to come up with a better alternative.
As for a command economy. That has proven itself to be a somewhat good idea in times of war, as it allows for quick massive changes. Certainly intressting when you want to transition to renewables, built up public transport everywhere and so forth. However in 1989 Russia had per capita emissions of 16.3t per capita making it one of the worsed countries in the world on that metric. Besides some small countries only the UAE, US, Canada and Czechia had higher emissions. Czechia also being a command economy. All of that while the material quality of life in the Soviet Union was worse then many countries in the West.
The problem with that is that command economies turn into dictatorships, when they lack control mechanisms. The only examples I can think of are war economies, which have been rather command economy like and have not turned into full dictatorships. Those however have also been limited.
So imho the best way of doing it, is to have the government set limits and have a mix of state owned companies, workers cooperatives, consumer cooperatives and some companies run by foundations in it as well. That way you avoid the concentration of power held by private companies and especially command economies. It also comes with a good set of checks and balances and can be adapted to local needs. The good part is we also know all of this works at least on a small scale.