In conversations with many environmentalists (and others) I often hear the comment that capitalism (and market-based economics more generally) is leading to the destruction of the planet. After a little prodding, I realize that what most of these people are referring to is not capitalism, but industrialization: the development of industry on an extensive scale.
The key point is that industrialization is not unique to capitalism; the Soviet Union followed a path of heavy industrialization for almost 70 years, during which time its destruction of the natural environment was much greater than in capitalist societies. In fact, Russia and the other countries of the former Soviet Union are still dealing with the effects of decades of extreme environmental neglect.
Of course, capitalism developed alongside the Industrial Revolution in Europe, and the two are intimately linked. Capitalist market economies have been the most effective at producing sustained periods of economic growth, and hence industrial capacity. But unlike societies in which industry is largely state-owned, capitalist societies allow for much greater flexibility and a wider range of innovation; centralized control of industrial production is not conducive to creative thinking and entrepreneurial activity.
This has big implications for the environment.
It is within capitalist and market-based societies that we have the greatest ability to change trajectories in production, bring new technologies on line, and respond to shifts in consumer demand. These are keys to a future where the environment is better protected. It is not guaranteed within capitalist societies, but the potential is always there if the political will exists to ensure that the negative environmental effects of industrialization are taken into account by producers so that incentives exist to shift towards cleaner technologies.
I suggest that environmentalists refine their arguments. If they are opposed to industrialization then they need to be very precise about this, since with malls, television, and mass consumerism also comes electricity, heating, better diets, longer life span, and an overall much improved standard of living. It is one thing to oppose wanton environmental destruction, but another to oppose material progress altogether.
In addition, if one is committed to ideas of freedom and liberty then one has to recognize that it is often difficult to separate the "bad" products of industrialization from the "good," since last time I checked most environmentalists weren't living with just the basics for survival.
Comments
View as Flat
Tom Twigg Posted 5:45 am
02 Aug 2006
If a twigg falls in the forest but nobody is there to hear it, it's probably best because there is bound to be cussing.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 5:56 am
02 Aug 2006
www.grist.org
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 5:59 am
02 Aug 2006
and more democracy might very well bring better environmental outcomes, but not necessarily- majorities don't guarantee much of anything, altough often they're the best chance we have
J.S.
Assistant Professor
Monterey Institute of International Studies
http://policy.miis.edu/faculty/faculty.html?id=171
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 6:15 am
02 Aug 2006
Capitalist market economies have been the most effective at producing sustained periods of economic growth, and hence industrial capacity.
The reason you and many others are tempted to take this as an undisputed truth is because we have gone through an unprecedented 60 years of growth and prosperity. It's a human tendency to generalize on the basis of the near-term past.
However, I don't think the near-term past will be a good guide to the future. The history of capitalism is beset with crises: depressions, wars and panics. If you had asked most thinkers during the 30s about the future of capitalism, they would shake their heads. Communists would point to Soviet Russia with its impressive growth rates, and those on the right would point to the fascist governments which had brought order to capitalism.
Even nowadays, cowboy capitalism as we have in the U.S. is an anomaly. Communist China with its odd combination of raw capitalism, socialist remnants and bureaucratic Communist government seems to be doing extraordinarily well. Other successful Asian nations like Singapore seem to have a directed capitalism with strong government role. Most of the European countries are social democracies and are doing very nicely, thank you.
It would be comforting if there were one economic truth, like socialism or market economies, that we could cling to. However, it looks as if the most valuable insights come from looking at the world without ideological lenses -- What works in what circumstances? What are the side effects of a certain economic policy?
Good thinking will be especially important as we are forced to confront crises like global warming and peak oil.
Peak oil will be problematic for capitalism, since both capitalism and industrialism only developed as cheap energy from fossil fuels became available. From coal, to oil, to natural gas, we've always had sources of energy for the industrial engine.
As energy becomes more expensive, perhaps much more expensive, is it possible that the economic growth we're accustomed to will stop? What will happen to our financial system, based as it is on a growing economy? What will happen to capitalism in the event of severe and prolonged depressions?
Two countries have made the transition from cheap energy: North Korea and Cuba. The story of Stalinist North Korea is a tragedy. Cuba, on the other hand, seems to have coped remarkably well. (See cuba: the accidental revolution (CBC).)
During wartime, capitalist countries have made the transition but only with strong government intervention.
I think in the future we will look back with disbelief at the conflict between capitalism and socialism - just as we regard with horror the Thirty Years War, in which Protestant and Catholic killed each other in the name of religion.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 6:46 am
02 Aug 2006
P.S. I'll let others comment on your claims about North Korea and Cuba, which are highly suspect.
Assistant Professor
Monterey Institute of International Studies
http://policy.miis.edu/faculty/faculty.html?id=171
Permalink
Chuckville Posted 6:55 am
02 Aug 2006
The major problem with anti-capitalist ideology is that is is utopian, and requires rigid and inflexible ideologies, such as Anarchism or Communism. People have to accept both the bullshit and the rhetorical bluster (bad), alongside the reallocation of power and resources (good).
But regulated Keynesian economics, limited socialism, was always successful. It was only the Plutocrats who wanted more and more and more wealth who debased it, and ultimately unravelled it.
We don't need ideology to reform the economic system, we need practicality. Climate change and resource depletion are serious enough problems to conquer, and addressing them can both create jobs and save the planet, and perhaps even lead to sustainable economic health (notice, I did not say growth...growth is a metric which has been obfuscated, and is predicated on the most rich and powerful growing continually more so). We need social services and infrastructure, not wars and luxury ammenities. And one does not have to buy all the Marxist palaver to enact it.
Read Derrick Jensen's Endgame. It's highly provocative. Also David Korten's The Great Turning.
Charles Shaw
Author/Activist
Chicago, IL
Permalink
rowall Posted 7:41 am
02 Aug 2006
I don't think we know that because as far as I know we have never seen honest accounting of capitalism. I'm 45 and all my life in the US we have externalized enormous costs associated with our economy, and from what I've seen all other measurable economies worldwide have too.
I believe that today our false accounting is a chicken coming home to roost, or to drop a turd in our pary punch bowl. We are now paying the bill for "externalities" that in biological fact never were externalities. Take your pick ... soil loss, or an atmosphere that can't take anymore dumping without a dramatic shift in the nature of the atmosphere, or water quality and quantity reductions, etc.
Real(honest)accounting would be a boon to better ways of living. Fortunately, better ways are happening at local levels, e.g. biological farming, rainfall capture and treatment, etc.
small biz developer, ecologist
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 7:46 am
02 Aug 2006
As for Cuba, I don't think anyone disputes that they were cut off from cheap oil by the fall of the Soviet Union, that they suffered and that they met the challenge and came up with some interesting solutions. It is not a utopia, but they managed a transition that many of us think is coming to the rest of the world. If you are serious about economics and environmentalism, it is worth learning about. One (not surprising) strategy was to re-organize farming into smaller units. Bill McKibben wrote a critical but fair assessment in the April 2005 Harpers.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 8:10 am
02 Aug 2006
As to Peak Oil- oil shocks happen and will happen and the economy will deal with it- in fact, if they're as bad as you think they may be that would be the best thing for capitalism since it would get technology R&D going at record levels in energy.
But... anyone out there want to bet me that the price of oil doesn't get out of control? (me on the side that it will not) If so, name the terms and I'll get back to you. I'm an economist who will put his money where his mouth is (at least a gentlemanly sum since I don't have much to spare being an academic!).
J.S.
Assistant Professor
Monterey Institute of International Studies
http://policy.miis.edu/faculty/faculty.html?id=171
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:31 pm
02 Aug 2006
Better yet, bet that we will not see further environmental degradation and extinctions. The price of oil is a distraction from the main show. If we don't find a better way, humanity is just going to go after the coal reserves and rainforests.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 3:08 pm
02 Aug 2006
And to everyone else- my proposition on future oil prices still stands....
J.S.
Assistant Professor
Monterey Institute of International Studies
http://policy.miis.edu/faculty/faculty.html?id=171
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:47 pm
02 Aug 2006
Where the means of production are owned and controlled by corporations that also control the governments. It actually very closely resembles what was called communism in the old soviet union and china.
Capitalism is typified by small business in the US, the backbone of the economy and the only source of real inovation. Monopolies stifle inovation to control markets.
It is illustrative of the problems with corporate media propaganda induced deception that this is so often overlooked. Without economic freedom political freedom cannot long endure.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
atreyger Posted 10:53 pm
02 Aug 2006
Granted, government control is outside of the scope of the definition of capitalism, but that includes environmental regulations. As a good capitalist, one should consider two aspects of the current economic system: subsidies v. regulations. With current US capitalism, most corporations are subject to fairly strict regulations (be it environmental, anti-trust, etc.), but as a way to 'level' the playing field, subsidies are used. If we don't want the subsidies, we shouldn't want the regulations either (that would be the true capitalist way).
Personally, I am against the subsidies and for the regulations, but what does that make me? Some sort of a crazy irrational environut or something? I don't know, maybe.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 11:00 pm
02 Aug 2006
Therefore, I do believe that the only true outcome of a free market (or capitalism if one so desires) supplemented by vast amounts of energy (fossil fuels) is precisely what is going on right now with all the multinational corporations. Wal-Mart is a beautiful example, specifically because it came from a small mom-and-pop store and it outcompeted next to everything else. Perfect example of capitalism gone right, right?
Permalink
biggav Posted 11:10 pm
02 Aug 2006
It is not guaranteed within capitalist societies, but the potential is always there if the political will exists to ensure that the negative environmental effects of industrialization are taken into account by producers so that incentives exist to shift towards cleaner technologies.
Jason - I sort of agree with you - we need a system with flexibility to cope with changes and capitalism seems to be a lot better than monolithic socialism in that respect.
That said, capitalism is prone to various forms of corruption and decay, and the US demonstrates many of those today. While Cuba has been quite successful at adapting to less oil, I don't think its an example of the bright green future I aspire to - it seems more an example of successfully avoiding collapse (which is an achievement and I think tends to disprove a lot of peak oil doomer mythology). Of course, I haven't been there so I may have the wrong impression.
From my relatively pragmatic view, every system has it good points and its bad points and some cultures are better suited to one system than another. I think the way Sweden and Germany are going about the energy transition, in a fairly planned and social democratic way, will probably be quite successful. But many of the tools that they will use have (and probably will continue to) come out of California and its fairly free market / libertarian techie culture. A lot of the renewable alternatives I see a lot of promise in (and mechanisms for being more efficient in energy usage) do depend greatly on continuing technological innovation.
I would like to see more focus on how a non industrial capitalism would work (this is what I like about the whole Viridian / cradle to cradle / natural capitalism school of thinking) rather than just repeating the free markets are more flexble mantra and not explaining how incentives to go green would actually be implemented.
What form of expression does the "political will" and "incentives" you talk about actually take - for example, if coal is by far the cheapest way to obtain energy, and we have enough coal supply available to trash the atmosphere completely, how does a "free market" stop this from happening ? (My answer is uniform, global carbon taxes and an end of subsidies to the fossil fuel industries - but I doubt many free market idealists - or ideologues - would agree with this).
ALso, beating up environmentalist strawmen is fairly annoying - there is a wide range of views amongst people who are concerned about the world they live in...
Permalink
Kif Scheuer Posted 11:14 pm
02 Aug 2006
you've stated several times over the last couple of weeks that capitalism has produced the best environmental outcomes of any system so far right?
I'd like to ask you something appropriate to a discussion of the distinction between capitalism and industrialism. You may have addressed this elsewhere but I missed it.
How do you define the "best environmental outcomes?"
We may have relatively good environmental conditions in the US, but the current system encourages US companies to take advantage of lax pollution regulations in developing countries. While China's industrialization is creating a lot of pollution, a huge amount of that pollution is going to produce goods for the US. Who owns that environmental outcome China or the US? Which system is responsible for that?
If capitalism is good at protecting the environment within a nation, but in the process takes advantage of developing countries to export pollution outside its' borders, it does not seem to be a system that has created the best environmental outcomes anywhere.
You might argue that a pure capitalism in every nation would mitigate that problem, but there will always be disparities of power and stability among nations, so I don't see that happening. For capitalism to lay claim to the title of "best for the environment" capitalistic nations would have to internalize environmental impacts even when there are "legitimate" ways to externalize them.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:52 am
03 Aug 2006
Think about it. We are trying to stop environmental devastation, not global warming per se. Global warming is greatly exacerbating that problem, but it is and has not been the sole cause of it.
Reducing CO2 is how we are hoping to reduce global warming. Hypothetically speaking, if we could find ways to reduce global warming without reducing CO2 emissions (mylar shade screens in orbit or whatever), then the looming liquid fossil fuel shortage would be less of a concern (we would use coal and use existing technology to keep the exhaust clean). Likewise, hypothetically speaking, if we can find ways to stop further environmental devastation without reversing global warming, then reversing it wouldn't matter, again, hypothetically speaking.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 7:34 am
03 Aug 2006
J.S.
Assistant Professor
Monterey Institute of International Studies
http://policy.miis.edu/faculty/faculty.html?id=171
Permalink
sunflower Posted 9:21 am
03 Aug 2006
I get the sense of despair that capital only for profit and industry without external costs will not help mitigate global warming.
I think we can start using this beast without changing the rules concerning subsidies and regulations
For profit capitalism is our 'agency' for combating climate change. We should start the work with the tools at hand. Capitalism can be guided, like elephants, to work for us instead of rampaging our gardens.
Perhaps a small first step could be a permanent tax credit for carbon-neutral energy displacement, like the Prius tax credit, but on all carbon-free energy equipment, from CFLs to solar collectors and wind farms. Industrialize carbon-free energy with tax-free capital.
Don't carpool alone.
Permalink
Kif Scheuer Posted 10:22 am
03 Aug 2006
Thanks for the reply. You may be right about MNCs environmental records compared to locals. That's a good point, but not quite what I was getting at.
If MNCs are better than locals, but worse than they could be in their home countries, who is responsible for the impacts? As consumers of products made overseas, by MNCs or local companies, under environmental conditions we might not permit at home, does that environmental burden belong to the country where it occurs or to the source of the demand - us?
Regarding degredation of open-access resources are you talking greatest as in most extreme example of degredation, or as in most amount of degredation compared to all other impacts? I would think the latter is a pretty hard claim to substantiate, but it's that latter sense which I was questioning in your statements that capitalism has produced the best environmental outcomes.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 10:57 am
03 Aug 2006
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 11:59 am
03 Aug 2006
J.S.
Assistant Professor
Monterey Institute of International Studies
http://policy.miis.edu/faculty/faculty.html?id=171
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 9:02 pm
03 Aug 2006
Hehehehehey. I'll take you word for it.
If/when multinational corporations own/run the world finally the environment will be in safe hands, wheeeew. Thank gaaawd.
No more elected governments to get in the way.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 11:25 pm
03 Aug 2006
Is this thread even about the environment? Or is that just a hobby to be pursued while we continue our careers justifying capitalist exploitation?
There will be "no countries or regions that can be exploited" when the environmental substrate everywhere is DEAD.
What's the argument of this thread, again? As Kif Scheuer suggests it:
"Capitalism has produced the best environmental outcomes of any system so far"
That's nice. Under capitalism, the oceans are dying, the planet is experiencing unprecedented and destructive heatwaves, species diversity is shrinking rapidly, and the forests are shrinking.
Are we arguing that since capitalism is the "best so far," let's not bother to imagine viable alternatives to capitalism? From a career standpoint, imagining a post-capitalism would be counterproductive, of course. After all, academic establishments in departments of economics, which determine who is hired and who makes tenure and who doesn't, generally don't encourage the holders of assistant professorships to become anticapitalists. It doesn't promote the health of the academic industry. And "Marxism," the main anticapitalist alternative, besides (for the most part) being ecologically unaware, is hardly a sure route to all that an academic careerist desires. Once again, the priorities fall into place. First: career. Second: planetary health.
Instead, it's more fun for the professors to diss the alternatives to capitalism and its continued exploitation of every "resource base" our planet contains. That way, the professors can keep their careers in their departments of economics. They can make up for the suspect appearance of the whole enterprise by promoting "capitalist environmentalism" on Gristmill. But as for the alternatives to "capitalist environmentalism": Communism? Socialism? Oooh, we can associate that with the Soviet Union! Hey, that'll work! The Soviet Union had a bad environmental record. Never mind that what the Soviet Union was, was this corporate state entity, running the state as a corporation within an overall CAPITALIST system, that was (as Tony Cliff suggested) a form of state capitalism.
Cliff's thesis of "state capitalism" would explain, first and foremost, why the Soviet Union folded so neatly into capitalism after 1991. The Soviet Union, after all, had elites. A "communist" or "socialist" regime wouldn't have elites -- the idea of a "dictatorship of the proletariat," as expressed in Marx's The Civil War in France, was that of (at least conceptually) direct rule by the WHOLE of the working class, not of a clique of bigshots claiming to represent them. And so when Emperor Yeltsin unilaterally disbanded the Soviet Union (without any say-so at all being expressed by the Soviet working class in that momentous decision), the old Soviet elites simply became Russian corporate elites.
Now, of course we would expect a "developing nation" such as the Soviet Union to engender professional elites. But the folks running the USSR could have created a system where anyone qualified to run the country could have run it, with coordinating positions routinely rotated. Instead, what Russia got politically was something more akin to Czarism, with a "Communist" ideological overlay. I suspect that humanity's future could do a lot better than that.
The Soviet Union could also have embraced localism, where local producers could have exerted direct control over their work. It wouldn't have to be "ownership" related. If we are going to create a system where the working class itself (and not a mere political party claiming to represent them) is in charge, we will have to find some way of handing the workers direct control of their own doings. Perhaps, if that had happened, the Soviet people could have avoided fouling the nests of the Soviet homeland. When you have local control, you tend to avoid destroying the local environment. But that didn't happen, either.
The point is this: if we are really in the business of imagining a post-capitalist future, holding up the Soviet Union and saying "that's the best the human race can do, so let's forget about alternatives to capitalism" doesn't cut it.
But, see, I don't think the folks at Gristmill are in the business of imagining a post-capitalist future. Instead, I think they pursue "environmentalism" as a way of defending career, and capitalism, first, while covering their butts on the environment thing. This would explain all the flagwaving in the initial post about "flexibility and a wider range of innovation" and "much improved standard of living" supposedly connected to industrialism.
I'd like to address the second claim first. For my part, I don't see why the whole of industrialism should be allowed to take credit for "much improved standard of living." Longer human lifespans are largely due to advances in sanitation and (secondarily) in medicine -- we no longer fear the Black Death because we no longer dump our trash in the local river, and we no longer fear smallpox because modern medicine has eradicated it. And electricity, heating, and better diets can be achieved within a system that is far less "industrial" than how the capitalist system creates such things today. Sunflower can lecture you all day about passive solar.
And, as for enjoying the benefits of "much improved standard of living," we can (for the most part) exclude the residents of Earth's burgeoning slums, as described in Mike Davis' Planet of Slums. It's not just a small chunk of humanity, to be sure. The human race is not yet a "we," but (under capitalism) rather a collection of separate individuals trying to buy their way into "increased standard of living" without any real "we" being assembled for the purposes of considering the overall cost of the system.
The point is that, although there are some benefits to industry, industrialism has become a fetish because of capitalism. Food, for instance, doesn't have to be an "industry" -- it can, instead, be grown locally with a much smaller ecological impact than that caused by a fleet of trucks distributing the produce of Washington, California, and Florida across 48 states through an interstate highway system for the sake of agribusiness profit. The human race can get all it wants from "increased standard of living" while at the same time maintaining a much reduced industrial base -- but we'll never find out how much reduced it can be as long as our priorities are profit first, planetary health second.
Now, as for "flexibility and a wider range of innovation." I believe I have already addressed "flexibility" -- "flexibility" is a product of decentralized, coordinated decision-making. And "innovation." Why is "innovation" necessary? And does capitalism really promote the sort of "innovation" we need? It seems to me that the sort of "innovation" we need, today, is the sort of "innovation" promoted by arts such as permaculture and sciences such as agroecology. And permaculture and agroecology are, for the most part, about rediscovering genetic, cultural, and environmental diversities that are steadily being wiped out by standardized business practices under capitalism. We certainly don't need a mass public of consumer drones that comes in a limited number of "lifestyle types" (as if that were itself an example of human "innovation"!)
In short, I don't think that, in the long run, this priority of "career first, planetary health second" is going to get Gristmill professionals either. They just don't seem poised to think through the implications of the idea of "sustainability," largely because they're so attached to capitalism.
http://ecosocialism.blogspot.com/
Permalink