Environmentalism and Capitalism
In my view the debate around how campaigners for the environment should view capitalism is a vital one, central to the whole effort. Debate on that may include a consideration that the basic options before us appear to be:
A. Campaigners for the environment wish for a different system altogether from capitalism, one that works better for nature and for humans too.
B. Campaigners for the environment consider it to be sufficient to regulate capitalism in such a way as to very significantly reduce damage to the environment and to our fellow humans.
If we consider which option is best then the various related issues, it seems to me, include:
1. That most people are put off with the labels anti-capitalist, or communist or anarchist, or even by the word politics. It may turn them away from helping out with the effort in general.
This ‘put-off-edness’ is, in my view, a big mistake, and a major problem in itself. Essentially, its letting elites control things by refusing to take control yourself. Because even if you don’t get involved in ‘politics’ the elite and powerful definitely will do. Therefore one positive goal, it seems to me, is to make an effort to combat this tendency to be put off by such labels and tribes. Instead to focus on the basic idea that we can and should be involved in helping to shape how our society is organised, both in how it affects the environment and also for our fellow humans.
2. There is some doubt as to the achievability of option A.
Some doubt it putting it mildly! At a guess I would say that a good 75% of the British population (where I'm from) still think that an alternative to capitalism is an unreachable utopian dream. 'Nice on paper, but...' and all that kind of thing. But it's simply not. It something we CAN do, we can chose, if we want. It's up to us how we organise society, including how we relate to the natural world. There are plenty of ideas about what an alternative would look like, and often these ideas are worked out in considerable detail. Of course the actual practice of doing a non capitalist system, of working it, of agreeing the specific methods etc will be full of trouble. But so what? Every system will be complex and have problems. Capitalism is complex and has problems. You may have noticed.
The main problem seems to me in enough people agreeing that we need to put that different system into place. In order to avoid the red rag words of communism/socialism/anarchism etc I normally use the abbreviation BESS, by which I mean a better economic and social system. Or in terms of environmentalism we could see it as meaning a better environmental and social system. Works either way! How to get enough of us to agree to create a BESS? Ok, that is a tough one. But if we could achieve that then the rest - messy as it would be - could be worked out in the normal way we humans get things done: we muddle through.
3. There is some doubt as to the long term success of option B and to the depth of change that can be achieved with this approach.
The issue of depth is simple enough: the basic aim of the capitalist system is to make as much profit for as little outlay as possible, and as part of that the tendency is to dismiss wider environmental and human costs, unless pushed to take them into account. Therefore, can we put enough pressure on the corporations and business dominated governments currently causing so much environmental damage as to reduce the damage to an extent that will make a fundamental difference? We can certainly achieve quite a lot here and we are doing so. But will it be deep enough to make the real difference needed? That is not at all certain. There seems to be such powerful forces on the other side whose wishes and habits are in the other direction, and whose ideological perspectives are against environmental protection and ecological sustainability. If those elite forces continue in control of the power they wield - as they would be if we continue with a capitalist system - then, can we create a strong enough counter balance to make real improvement to the environment? Might it not be better to have a system in which there is no elite capitalist class with such power?
As to long term success of option B : if, as some think, the very nature and core of capitalism is to do things that damage the environment, then won’t they simply undue the regulations we put into place? Regulations put into place in the 1940s and 50s and 60s in terms of the education, welfare, banking, rights at work etc were steadily undone in the neo-liberal 80s, 90s and early 2000’s. So, what is to stop a series of very good pro-environment regulations put in place in the 2020’s being rolled back by the capitalist elites of the 2050s? I can imagine the arguments put forward by the Donald Trumps and Bolsanaros of the 2050s: “Ok, we HAD all those rules to protect the environment - but now things are fine again, the amazon has lots of new trees! Isn’t it about time to set the logging industry free of all those regulations? Think of all the jobs it will create!”
It is possible that capitalism will clean up its act once and for all. That a fundamentally ‘green’ capitalism will take root and become the norm. Much as its unthinkable now to employ small children in factories, as they used to in the 18th and early 19th centuries. But, as noted, the basic tendency of capitalism is to make as much profit for as little outlay as possible, and to dismiss wider environmental and human costs. Therefore, it’s highly likely that a future capitalists will once again try to push aside environmental aspects. To say ‘we dont really need X expensive safety tests on these chemicals… we need to knock down the trees in X natural area for the new road to bring in business… it’s too much bother to enforce this no plastic rule….’ etc. It’s in the basic nature of capitalism to think and act like that.
Therefore, it would take constant public vigilance - over decades and centuries - to put pressure on corporations to balance the profit aspects with the wider environmental aspects. We may conclude: ‘Well, if its going to be that long and difficult an effort might it not be better to change the system to one that does not have that polluting element? More effort in the short run, but less in the long run.’ Which brings us back to option A.
In my view the debate around how campaigners for the environment should view capitalism is a vital one, central to the whole effort. Debate on that may include a consideration that the basic options before us appear to be:
A. Campaigners for the environment wish for a different system altogether from capitalism, one that works better for nature and for humans too.
B. Campaigners for the environment consider it to be sufficient to regulate capitalism in such a way as to very significantly reduce damage to the environment and to our fellow humans.
If we consider which option is best then the various related issues, it seems to me, include:
1. That most people are put off with the labels anti-capitalist, or communist or anarchist, or even by the word politics. It may turn them away from helping out with the effort in general.
This ‘put-off-edness’ is, in my view, a big mistake, and a major problem in itself. Essentially, its letting elites control things by refusing to take control yourself. Because even if you don’t get involved in ‘politics’ the elite and powerful definitely will do. Therefore one positive goal, it seems to me, is to make an effort to combat this tendency to be put off by such labels and tribes. Instead to focus on the basic idea that we can and should be involved in helping to shape how our society is organised, both in how it affects the environment and also for our fellow humans.
2. There is some doubt as to the achievability of option A.
Some doubt it putting it mildly! At a guess I would say that a good 75% of the British population (where I'm from) still think that an alternative to capitalism is an unreachable utopian dream. 'Nice on paper, but...' and all that kind of thing. But it's simply not. It something we CAN do, we can chose, if we want. It's up to us how we organise society, including how we relate to the natural world. There are plenty of ideas about what an alternative would look like, and often these ideas are worked out in considerable detail. Of course the actual practice of doing a non capitalist system, of working it, of agreeing the specific methods etc will be full of trouble. But so what? Every system will be complex and have problems. Capitalism is complex and has problems. You may have noticed.
The main problem seems to me in enough people agreeing that we need to put that different system into place. In order to avoid the red rag words of communism/socialism/anarchism etc I normally use the abbreviation BESS, by which I mean a better economic and social system. Or in terms of environmentalism we could see it as meaning a better environmental and social system. Works either way! How to get enough of us to agree to create a BESS? Ok, that is a tough one. But if we could achieve that then the rest - messy as it would be - could be worked out in the normal way we humans get things done: we muddle through.
3. There is some doubt as to the long term success of option B and to the depth of change that can be achieved with this approach.
The issue of depth is simple enough: the basic aim of the capitalist system is to make as much profit for as little outlay as possible, and as part of that the tendency is to dismiss wider environmental and human costs, unless pushed to take them into account. Therefore, can we put enough pressure on the corporations and business dominated governments currently causing so much environmental damage as to reduce the damage to an extent that will make a fundamental difference? We can certainly achieve quite a lot here and we are doing so. But will it be deep enough to make the real difference needed? That is not at all certain. There seems to be such powerful forces on the other side whose wishes and habits are in the other direction, and whose ideological perspectives are against environmental protection and ecological sustainability. If those elite forces continue in control of the power they wield - as they would be if we continue with a capitalist system - then, can we create a strong enough counter balance to make real improvement to the environment? Might it not be better to have a system in which there is no elite capitalist class with such power?
As to long term success of option B : if, as some think, the very nature and core of capitalism is to do things that damage the environment, then won’t they simply undue the regulations we put into place? Regulations put into place in the 1940s and 50s and 60s in terms of the education, welfare, banking, rights at work etc were steadily undone in the neo-liberal 80s, 90s and early 2000’s. So, what is to stop a series of very good pro-environment regulations put in place in the 2020’s being rolled back by the capitalist elites of the 2050s? I can imagine the arguments put forward by the Donald Trumps and Bolsanaros of the 2050s: “Ok, we HAD all those rules to protect the environment - but now things are fine again, the amazon has lots of new trees! Isn’t it about time to set the logging industry free of all those regulations? Think of all the jobs it will create!”
It is possible that capitalism will clean up its act once and for all. That a fundamentally ‘green’ capitalism will take root and become the norm. Much as its unthinkable now to employ small children in factories, as they used to in the 18th and early 19th centuries. But, as noted, the basic tendency of capitalism is to make as much profit for as little outlay as possible, and to dismiss wider environmental and human costs. Therefore, it’s highly likely that a future capitalists will once again try to push aside environmental aspects. To say ‘we dont really need X expensive safety tests on these chemicals… we need to knock down the trees in X natural area for the new road to bring in business… it’s too much bother to enforce this no plastic rule….’ etc. It’s in the basic nature of capitalism to think and act like that.
Therefore, it would take constant public vigilance - over decades and centuries - to put pressure on corporations to balance the profit aspects with the wider environmental aspects. We may conclude: ‘Well, if its going to be that long and difficult an effort might it not be better to change the system to one that does not have that polluting element? More effort in the short run, but less in the long run.’ Which brings us back to option A.
Other Options
Some consider that capitalism is not the central problem and therefore perhaps the basic choice above is not our main concern. I've seen from various people that a focus on education, consumerism and personal priorities are the problem.
Of course education is important, but it's often seen as a easy and 'non-political' cure all. Sadly for us its neither of those. One of the problems with education is that it takes a long time to filter through to wide scale social changes because of the time it takes for those young people to reach voting age and gather enough mass to push through change. It can take decades.
On the other hand, if we can push for some new rule that requires big corporations to spend 1% of their income on reforestation, for example, that could start to make a real difference within months. That’s a blow specifically at the capitalist nature of those corporations (which is to make as much profit for as little outlay as possible). And they would fight against that rule tooth and nail, which is further indication that there very much are the problem. There are countless examples of such corporations avoiding such schemes that would help things…and countless examples of them directly polluting and destroying natural areas for the sake of profits. Direct pressure on them is needed.
Which is not to say we should not reform and improve the education system, of course! But that is a VERY political issue. How do we do that, for what purpose, and by who, etc. All these and more shot through with ideological aspects. A compulsory A level, for example, in 'Environmental Studies' that had to be taken would be seen by right wingers are 'brain washing the young with leftist ideas' and 'taking time away from learning real things, like spelling and arithmetic'. If it was not compulsory then what use would it be? If, say, only 20% of young folk took it then how much longer would it take to bring about positive change?
Others would say 'people should be learning skills useful for the world of work, not how to hang around the streets protesting'. And of course the focus on education for job skills shows us how the issue of capitalism is very relevant here. It is an idea key to capitalism that we are primarily workers, not fully rounded humans. We need to learn specialism that bring profit to X company, not a wide ranging development of our critical faculties, etc. The issue of education and capitalism are directly linked and it is very much a political issue.
And so are consumerism and personal priorities. Consumerism is clearly very linked to capitalism. A change in how we spend means a huge change in the level and types of profits corporations make. If, for example, it became common personal choice of most people to do without a car, to walk or use a bicycle instead, influenced by environmental concerns, then that would see the closure of most car making companies. A direct effect on capitalism, which would not be welcome by those companies at all and resisted.
The huge amount they spend on adverts and marketing, on making cars seem cool, about freedom and personal achievement etc makes it highly unlikely that a mass abandonment of cars will happen in the near future. Which means those corporations are using their power to affect your consumption and personal priorities - even if all those cars damage the environment. That is secondary to making profits. And so how is changing consumerism and personal priorities towards something better for the environment to be achieved in face of corporations that do not wish that? Would it not be a good idea to take away the power of those corporations so that people can make choices without the massive influence of such advertising?
And that means ending capitalism. Yep.
Some consider that capitalism is not the central problem and therefore perhaps the basic choice above is not our main concern. I've seen from various people that a focus on education, consumerism and personal priorities are the problem.
Of course education is important, but it's often seen as a easy and 'non-political' cure all. Sadly for us its neither of those. One of the problems with education is that it takes a long time to filter through to wide scale social changes because of the time it takes for those young people to reach voting age and gather enough mass to push through change. It can take decades.
On the other hand, if we can push for some new rule that requires big corporations to spend 1% of their income on reforestation, for example, that could start to make a real difference within months. That’s a blow specifically at the capitalist nature of those corporations (which is to make as much profit for as little outlay as possible). And they would fight against that rule tooth and nail, which is further indication that there very much are the problem. There are countless examples of such corporations avoiding such schemes that would help things…and countless examples of them directly polluting and destroying natural areas for the sake of profits. Direct pressure on them is needed.
Which is not to say we should not reform and improve the education system, of course! But that is a VERY political issue. How do we do that, for what purpose, and by who, etc. All these and more shot through with ideological aspects. A compulsory A level, for example, in 'Environmental Studies' that had to be taken would be seen by right wingers are 'brain washing the young with leftist ideas' and 'taking time away from learning real things, like spelling and arithmetic'. If it was not compulsory then what use would it be? If, say, only 20% of young folk took it then how much longer would it take to bring about positive change?
Others would say 'people should be learning skills useful for the world of work, not how to hang around the streets protesting'. And of course the focus on education for job skills shows us how the issue of capitalism is very relevant here. It is an idea key to capitalism that we are primarily workers, not fully rounded humans. We need to learn specialism that bring profit to X company, not a wide ranging development of our critical faculties, etc. The issue of education and capitalism are directly linked and it is very much a political issue.
And so are consumerism and personal priorities. Consumerism is clearly very linked to capitalism. A change in how we spend means a huge change in the level and types of profits corporations make. If, for example, it became common personal choice of most people to do without a car, to walk or use a bicycle instead, influenced by environmental concerns, then that would see the closure of most car making companies. A direct effect on capitalism, which would not be welcome by those companies at all and resisted.
The huge amount they spend on adverts and marketing, on making cars seem cool, about freedom and personal achievement etc makes it highly unlikely that a mass abandonment of cars will happen in the near future. Which means those corporations are using their power to affect your consumption and personal priorities - even if all those cars damage the environment. That is secondary to making profits. And so how is changing consumerism and personal priorities towards something better for the environment to be achieved in face of corporations that do not wish that? Would it not be a good idea to take away the power of those corporations so that people can make choices without the massive influence of such advertising?
And that means ending capitalism. Yep.