Five Dangerous Thoughts about Capitalism

=By= Alnoor Ladha and Martin Kirk

IndustryLadhaKirk1That is, there are no dangerous thoughts for the simple reason that thinking itself is such a dangerous enterprise. . . . nonthinking is even more dangerous. – Hannah Arendt

Wherever we turn, it seems that there is a great narrowing. Ideas that have engaged great leaders, philosophers, poets and visionaries through the ages are being boxed away as if they are obvious, and settled. What is human progress? What do we mean by ‘growth’?  What is freedom? How do we balance our wants and needs against those of future generations? These are the foundations of human life and society and yet there is ever-less interest in them in the corridors of global power.

The front edge of this wave is that mesh of political and corporate actors who wield material global power; this includes the leaders of G20 nations and Fortune 500 companies and the vast majority of parliamentarians and executives that surround them. Each of them will give you the same basic answers. They will say that progress is, first and foremost, economic growth. Everything – by which they mean everything  – else is secondary because it’s necessarily an offshoot of that growth; it’s the economy, stupid! Growth, in turn, is the increase of profit or the national equivalent, Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Ergo, GDP is progress. Freedom is the capacity of me and mine to have and to own, to progress and to grow according to the above. Our wants and needs are paramount; sacrificing an inch of that freedom is unconscionable.

And that’s if they’re moderates. It matters little, now, whether they are nominally on the left or right of any aisle; everyone with direct access to global power believes the above to be so obvious as to preclude alternatives. How else, they say, could it possibly be?

The answer to which should be, how long have you got?

This narrowing is happening at a time when what is required is a great expansion. Is this truly the best/worst system human beings can create? Does economic growth really capture who we are?  Does vast inequality represent the best humanity can do? Is destruction of our planetary habitat inevitable? To answer these sorts of questions we need more options, not more uniformity; more deep thinking, not more rote acceptance; more opposition, not more repetition of the cold, dry lie that there is no alternative.

We would like to suggest that our only absolute limitation is our collective imagination, expressed through our will to change the mythologies that hold this house of cards together. We believe there is an emergent consciousness, stretching out against this narrowing, gradually becoming aware of itself and its awesome power.

We can hear its insurgent voice in social movements as diverse as the Arab Spring, the Chilean Winter, the Idle No More Indigenous movement, the anti-corruption movements in Brazil and India, the gentle but insistent dissent of Occupy Central in Hong Kong, the furious disbelief of protestors in Ferguson and New York City, and the dozens of African Awakenings happening across the Continent. They are each different and specific, but at the heart of all of them is a voice saying that we have a system that is failing 99% of us.  As whole populations are learning to communicate and think together in order to cope with whole-world problems, it says, we can do much, much better.

Our system of modern capitalism is just one story; it is not the only one there is.  It’s not inherent within us.  It isn’t some inevitable expression of predefined Human Nature. It was invented by human beings and so human beings can change it.  But in order to get there, we first have to engage in some ‘dangerous thinking’.

Dangerous Thought One: Ideology  rules

Those in power have always told us to beware of ideology. There is a strong inference that it represents a warping of our pragmatic ability to get things done by whatever means necessary. But that’s just plain wrong. And a necessary distraction, of course. Ideology is the set of ideas and ideals we all must hold to operate in the world. It is not a weakness of those who don’t agree with us.

The deep irony is that by demonising ideology they are clearing space for their ideology in particular. If only bad or stupid people are ideological, the logic goes, those we vote for and buy from, who fill our TV screens and make our laptops, somehow can’t be ideologues themselves.  The ideas that bind them must be above ideology. That is their story.

But is there any way in which the US spending of $400 billion annually on the military is not a statement of ideology?  Or the subsidization of very large, very rich corporations like Exxon Mobil or GE with taxpayer’s money? Or the failure to regulate the casino banks of Wall Street? These are all active strategies for success by some measure, grounded in ideas and ideals, and so are, by definition, deeply ideological. Simply saying your ideals float above ideology doesn’t make it so. It simply turns our fear of ‘being ideological’ into a means of reinforcing the potency of the status quo. As the philosopher Slavoj Zizek says, “ideology is always a background condition”.

 

The dominant ideology in the world today is called neoliberal capitalism. Some call it the Washington Consensus or Market Fundamentalism, but for the sake of this conversation, we’ll call it Neoliberalism.

Quite simply, it is a practical expression of three philosophical premises. First, that our relationship to others is best filtered through a competitive lens (am I better, richer, etc.), which inevitably leads to rigid hierarchies, zero-sum logic and a lot of unthinking dogma.

Second, it equates wealth with life success, which is then equated to virtue (e.g. rich people are good, poor people are bad, therefore poverty is a moral failing). Finally, the individual is the primary unit of power (e.g. Thatcher’s famous line “There is no such thing as society, just individuals and families”). People are responsible to themselves first, peers second, and possibly their God, in that order. Classic Ayn Rand.

The implications for this ‘moral philosophy’ are diabolical. It leads directly to the economics of the self-obsessed individual, which leads to the atomization of our society and the focus on personal consumption as salvation. It justifies the bankrupt notion of trickle down economics, smuggling in notions such as: ‘self-interest benefits everyone’, ‘there’s an all-knowing invisible hand’, ‘there is supreme efficiency in the market’, ‘the more rich people the better’, etc. And it prioritizes private property rather than the collective ownership, which in turn leads to what the late Harvard economist J.K. Galbraith called “private affluence and public squalor”.

Neoliberalism can be summarized by this equation: selfishness is rational and rationality is everything; therefore selfishness is everything.

Dangerous Thought Two: Climate change and inequality are created by our current economic system.

How many of us truly believe the old economist’s trope that the world’s major issues such as climate change and inequality are ‘externalities’ of our current system; things that have come to be entirely alongside or even in spite of what humans have been doing? It is self-evident that they are the logical outcome of a system that requires ever more consumption to drive perpetual material growth, and that is fueled by the extraction of a finite supply of natural resources.

Bloomberg recently reported that for every dollar of income created in the US since 2008, 93 cents of the income growth has gone to top 1%. So it doesn’t matter where that money is made, 93 cents is going to the top 1%. Therefore, every dollar of wealth created by definition creates more inequality. As coders would say, this is not a bug in the system, but a feature of the system.

Relatedly, the activist and scholar Firoze Manji has suggested that climate change is not man made, but capital made. Every dollar of wealth created in the world heats up our planet because we have an extractives and fossil fuel based economy.

Capitalism turns natural resources into commodities in order to attract more capital. That’s its sole purpose. As the recent International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report has shown, we are now on course for a 3-4 degree rise in temperature by 2050, which is correlated to a 40% – 50% loss of biodiversity. In other words, half of all plant and animal life on this planet will no longer be with us in under 40 years because of the voracious human appetite for more growth. Scientists tell us that we are already in 6th great planetary extinction with 150 – 200 species dying every day. This is 1000 times the baseline rate of extinction.

The logic of neoliberalism and our current economic system locks us into this path dependency, so it feels like we can never risk slowing growth. We even subsidize our own destruction by giving more money to fossil fuel companies and expanding their ability to destroy the planet through additional infrastructure like new pipelines and oil exploration projects. Exxon made over $40 billion in profit last year, the highest profit in the history of money, while the US government gave them over $1 billion of tax payer money in subsidies in the same year. And they are paying less than 15% in tax, and paying zero federal tax.

Most of us understand these links and the logic, but with the great narrowing in the corridors of power there is seemingly no way to turn that knowledge into concerted action. At least, that is what the power elites would like us to believe.

Dangerous Thought Three: We all live in the Matrix

There are some of us who believe that we are exempt from the neoliberal operating system. That this is an American or British, or even now, a Chinese phenomenon. But we would argue that through globalization and the global rule of corporations, we have now entered a late stage of capitalism in which we effectively all live in a One Party Planet – the Neoliberal Party.

Under this party, we are connected into a virtual Matrix by a web of beliefs, laws and structures.

We are programmed from birth to believe in the moral philosophy of competition, individualism, the virtue of material consumption, and social status determined by the wealth hierarchy.

We are told that wealth is a sign of virtue. And it’s a short step from there to believing that those with the most money are the most virtuous, that they deserve to have power over the rest of us.

We are convinced that paying off every debt to rich corporations and people is a moral obligation – that if we can’t, there is something wrong with us and we deserve to be punished.

In reality, we all know instinctively that we are defined by our connections to each other. Our individuality is a truth within the intricate web of society. Our individuation may help us operate in the world and navigate relationships, but it is not an impermeable barrier that we should celebrate as the be all and end all of life.

It is self-evident that the richest are no less connected than anyone else, which means that they, like everyone else, rely on the society of humans around them for their wealth – on government subsidies and services, on public education and tax-funded research, and on the hard labour of people poorer than themselves.

 

We live in a Matrix

It is self-evident that the richest are no less connected than anyone else, which means that they, like everyone else, rely on the society of humans around them for their wealth.

 

Virtue is not the preserve of those who have hoarded the most money. If anything, the reverse is true. There is mounting scientific evidence to suggest that being so addicted to material wealth that you acquire it in the millions or billions is an unhealthy addiction that stunts moral, emotional and spiritual growth, and it can lead to highly sociopathic behaviour.

The line between sociopathic behaviour and a psychopathy is blurry at best. Just look at how large corporations, very often supported by governments, are forever coming up with even more ingenious ways to create debt, and aggressively promote ways of life and moral codes that require it so they can be confident that we will keep funneling money in their direction in the form of interest. This is a means of ensuring we remain submissive and docile as we focus all of our energy struggling to meet the obligations they have defined.

When there is potential to overturn the operating system – for example, the 2008 financial crisis – it in fact punishes the poor first and hardest as we are enmeshed in the global capital infrastructure from the food we buy to where our pensions are invested. The old trope holds true that the rich become even richer because power begets power, and money begets money – and the two are interchangeable. And this is what is most valued by the machine.

The Matrix is so powerful and adaptable that even when we do dissent, it often gets commodified and sold back to us. There were Occupy Wall Street posters being sold at Wal Mart last Christmas for over $40 USD a pop. Even techniques for spirituality are co-opted to make us better capitalists. There has been an exponential rise of Buddhism, yoga, meditation, Ayurvedic and other Eastern practices as crutches for mental burnout and spiritual ennui in capitalist countries.

The dark spider web of neoliberal belief is so powerful because it binds economic logic to a moral logic, so to question the economic logic (e.g. growth) is to question the morality of how we live and our very personhood. Since our jobs and our identities are all intertwined with that of the system, we are incapable of breaking free of the logic.

As the philosopher John Ralston Saul has said: “we assume that people of merit rise to the top of the system. But in fact, the system finds the people that are best constructed to further its own existence, and draws them to the top.” In other words, if the system values selfishness above all else, selfish people above all others will be rewarded with what the system has to offer.

We have all created our own stories in order to feel as comfortable as we can in the Matrix. People at the World Bank or the Gates Foundation believe they’re helping the poor, and in limited ways many of them are. People in advertising agencies think they’re contributing by being creative and increasing consumer choice, and at a micro-level this may be true. But by accepting and then validating the logic at the heart of the system they are in fact ensuring the murky waters of the status quo stay toxic. If we attempt to prune a tree in a rotten orchard, are we really having any impact on the health of the orchard?

 

Dangerous Thought Four: We live in false economy

So what is the root driver of all this madness? How deep do we have to dig?

The answer to that is, until we find what binds all the destructive forces. And within the current Matrix that we are all unmeshed, the root of growth is debt.

In a debt-based monetary system, the very creation of money creates debt. Therefore, growth has to exceed interest (which is the payback of debt) in order for capital to increase.

We thus get locked into perpetual debt-based growth, which creates inequality and destroys our planet. As David Attenborough has said, “If you believe in infinite growth on a finite planet, you are either a madman or an economist.”

We value the wrong thing – i.e. financial wealth – so we in turn measure the wrong thing – i.e. growth. We therefore live in a false economy.

Let’s give a concrete example. The global economy roughly grew at 3% last year (2014), which generated an additional $2.2 trillion in ‘new’ products and services. In other words, commodified natural resources and human labour to the tune of $2.2 trillion. This is equivalent of global GDP in 1970. It took us from the dawn of humanity to 1970 to achieve an annual GDP of $2.2 trillion dollars – we now require that amount just in the delta of a single year. Next year we may need 1974’s GDP, then 1990’s, etc.  Soon we’ll need to 2015’s GDP in order for the global Ponzi scheme not to implode.

We live in a false economy

We can’t have infinite growth on a finite planet

The mathematical way to describe this is that we are now in a period of exponential growth. When this happens in an organism we call it cancer: uncontrollable growth of cells to the point of self-annihilation. And because we are all locked into a Matrix that serves the neoliberal ideology, we are made complicit in our own self-annihilation. Growth is couched in jobs and securing investments, and indeed that’s true, so it becomes all of our business to create further growth.

This is not a dark room conspiracy – from the survival of the most basic cell all the way up to the infinite complexity of the Internet, this is how complex adaptive systems behave. They create and emerge from matrices of energy and matter that support their existence. The logic of capital is merely the logic of a particular complex, adaptive system. As Thomas Picketty recently has proven in such detail, left to its own devices, the system will always reward capital with more capital, pulled from the sources of production it has.

And while the destruction amasses, we are sold a false idea of the economy as a necessary savior to keep us complicit.

In 2011, 110 of the 175 largest global economic entities on earth were corporations, with the corporate sector representing a clear majority (over 60 percent) over countries. The revenues of Royal Dutch Shell, for instance, were on par with the GDP of Norway and dwarfed the GDP of Thailand, Denmark or Venezuela.

In other words, more economic power is in private hands than public. Most corporations started the globalization process by exploiting human labor where it was cheapest and the rules were the most slack. They then capitalized on the lack of global governance around tax and essentially opted out of the social contract with humanity – there’s now $32 trillion sitting in tax havens and 60% of world trade happens between MNCs own subsidiaries, largely through what’s known as transfer mis-pricing. And then the kicker, they subverted our democracy. Research from Harvard’s Saffra Center for Ethics shows that corporations achieve up to a $220 ROI for lobbying Congress. Why would you ‘invest’ your money in anything else.

We are told that as the rich get richer the rest of us will get richer too.  But we know now that this is a lie. Average wages are lower today than they were in the 1960s, and household incomes are stagnating while the 1% are growing richer than ever before. Today, the richest 85 people in the world have more wealth than the poorest 3.5 billion.

We are told that we can solve global poverty if rich countries give more aid to poor countries.  But see beyond the rhetoric and it’s horribly obvious that aid is flowing in the other direction.  Rich countries are rich because they grab land and natural resources, and exploit the human labor of poor countries.  We will only be able to eliminate poverty once we stop this plunder.

We believe that governments run the world, and that those governments are democratic.  But the most powerful entities on earth are corporations, not governments, run for private profit not public good.  And these corporations exercise undue influence over government policies.  In a system where money buys votes, democracy is nothing but an illusion, and the hopes and desires of the majority are rarely considered.

We believe that our media is free and impartial.  But in reality 90% of the media is controlled by only six corporations, which silence all criticism of their interests.  And our Internet – which we rely on to communicate and share ideas – is poisoned by a global network of state surveillance.

We are told to that our current way of living provides some kind of ‘order’ forgetting that the entire system has been built upon the history of colonialism, imperialism and genocide. Not to mention the constant state of war, and plunder from poorer nations, that is required to prop up the Western way of life.

The only way to change things is to change what the system itself values, and to change the very rules that articulate and maintain those values.

 

Dangerous Thought Five: Another story is possible

These myths are falling apart around us, and the story that they uphold is beginning to collapse.  The system is constructed by a set of laws and rules and beliefs constructed by human beings. As the comedian Russell Brand says, “Capitalism is not real; it is an idea. America is not real; it is an idea that someone had ages ago. Britain, Christianity, Islam, karate, Wednesdays are all just ideas that we choose to believe in and very nice ideas they are, too, when they serve a purpose. These concepts, though, cannot be served to the detriment of actual reality.”

We yearn for a different story, a better story, a story that is truer to the values we know are right – a story that celebrates our connections to others and to our broader world.  We are eager to cast off debts, to stop being complicit in the exploitation of our brothers and sisters around the world, to cease the destructive pillage, to abandon the competition that turns friend into foe, and to recover our relationships.  We are ready for healing.

We know that there are other stories out there.

Capitalism is Just a story

Dangerous thought 5: Together, we can change things. Start a different story

 

Anthropologists tell us that for most of human history we lived in small egalitarian societies that rewarded co-operation and sharing and punished selfishness and accumulation. No one is saying we can go back to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, but it’s an indicator of what’s possible for human nature – in fact, we have over 90,000 years of inspiration of what is possible.

Just ten years ago scientists discovered what they call mirror neurons, proving that we are hard-wired for empathy.  And behavioral economists have shown that, when left to our own devices, tend to default to values of fairness and justice. These are the better, truer angels of our nature.

All we lack is the confidence to see beyond the constraints of the present story.  And we start by asking the hard questions we have been told not to ask.  People around the world are beginning to do just this.  They are rising up in response to our civilization’s crisis – from Occupy Wall Street to the Arab Spring, from protests in Brazil to the Chilean Winter, from the Zapatistas in Mexico to the student uprising in Quebec, from the Idle No More Indigenous People’s movement to Transition Towns around the world – these are all expressions of a new world that is possible. They are sites of great hope for us all.  The world is beginning to heal—and we can take it farther, faster.

There are new ideas bubbling up all around the world that point to a better way. Some of these solutions are not difficult, like moving away from GDP as a measure of progress, taxing carbon at its source, creating a global wealth tax, banning certain types of advertising, putting a moratorium on rigged trade rules (like the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership), and even putting limits on how powerful corporations can become (e.g. the anti-trust laws that used to exist around the world, most notably in the United States up to the 1970s).  Others are more radical, like removing corporate money from politics, abolishing military spending, revoking corporations’ right to do business if they don’t serve our collective interest, moving to a four hour work day, providing a basic citizen’s income to every human being, devolving power to local communities governed by direct democracy, an even getting rid of our debt-based currency system altogether.

Ideas abound.  The decision is ours to reclaim our past and our future. Will we continue as soldiers of the status quo, regardless of destruction it will guarantee? Or will we stand with the world’s majority to create the better world we know is possible?

 


Alnoor Ladha and Martin Kirk are founding members of /The Rules, a global network of activists, organizers, designers, coders, researchers and writers dedicated to changing the rules that create inequality and poverty around the world.

Source: Films for Action
Featured Image by Ralph Chaplin, 1917.

 

Note to Commenters
Due to severe hacking attacks in the recent past that brought our site down for up to 11 days with considerable loss of circulation, we exercise extreme caution in the comments we publish, as the comment box has been one of the main arteries to inject malicious code. Because of that comments may not appear immediately, but rest assured that if you are a legitimate commenter your opinion will be published within 24 hours. If your comment fails to appear, and you wish to reach us directly, send us a mail at: editor@greanvillepost.com

We apologize for this inconvenience.

horiz-long grey

Screen Shot 2015-12-08 at 2.57.29 PMNauseated by the
vile corporate media?
Had enough of their lies, escapism,
omissions and relentless manipulation?

GET EVEN.
Send a donation to

The Greanville Post–or
SHARE OUR ARTICLES WIDELY!
But be sure to support YOUR media.
If you don’t, who will?

horiz-black-wide
ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL-QUOTES BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS.





Ecosocialism as Holistic Earth Care

ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE | from our classic archives | first posted in August 2010


REPOSTED 4 april 2015

Redefining our role as Environmental Agents

AN INTERVIEW WITH JOEL KOVEL | August 16th 2010
Click here to download FREE the book THE ENEMY OF NATURE (Requires Acrobat Reader/ PDF)

Joel_Kovel_Closeup 
Canadian Dimension: There are lots of serious struggles around the world against instances of environmental destruction, privatization of water and other resources, etc. Yet these efforts are almost always isolated, fragmented, one-off events even within national boundaries, let alone the globe. What needs to be done to create resistance movements at a national and global level? Where will the leadership come from?
.
Joel Kovel: Of key importance is the notion of “environmentalism” itself. The environment is by definition what is outside us rather than something in which we participate and to which we are connected. Environmental thinking conduces to seeing everything in terms of resources and not as an interconnected manifold of ecosystems. Note that this reproduces the economic logic of capitalism itself. At a deep level, capital creates the ecological crisis by monetizing everything in its relentless effort to commodify the world. Isolation and fragmentation is an essential feature of the breakdown of ecosystems; this extends to ways of thinking and seeing for those ecosystems in which we take part. Thus mainstream environmentalism can be said to be part of the problem rather than a move to solve it.
.
This is why it is essential to emphasize the role of capitalism as the “efficient cause” of the ecological crisis. People are more ready to understand this than appears at first glance; once encouraged, they get the idea readily, and then the whole world opens up for them. The ecological perspective is inherently anti-capitalist, insofar as capital destabilizes ecosystems. This is also a way of saying that we need eco-socialism, not environmentalism! Since ecosocialism focuses on empowering human agency rather than technocratic tinkering around the edges, leadership will come from those activists who directly resist capital’s destabilization of ecosystems through building community: people like Lois Gibbs and Chico Mendes.
.

Making Moves For Change

CD: Beyond pressing for direct caps on polluters through regulation, what actions should ecosocialists be taking to keep the oil in the soil, the coal in the hole and tar sand in the land?
.
JK: Ecosocialist activism is a kind of guerrilla warfare against an occupier. Its means may be nonviolent, but it is a struggle to the death — and for life. Capital is as much an invader as any army: it breaks down boundaries, takes over communities as well as bodies like a parasite, insinuates its commodified relations into life-worlds, and introduces alienating institutions and form of reason. All of these points have to be contested.
.
There is no way that frontal assault can win such a war. We need, rather, to employ multiple campaigns, coordinated in ways that weaken and demoralize the adversary while building zones of ecosocialist production. We might schematically sort these into three categories:  at the level of the state or trans-statal organization, like the Copenhagen or G-20 meetings; against the corporation, the bank, etc: for example, suing Chevron in Ecuador; taking on BP in Houston while drawing on radically feminist strategies; at the point of extraction — the “soil,” the “hole” etc. — Niger Delta, West Virginia, Alberta.
.
Needless to add, there is no fixed plan, and campaigns have to be creatively adaptive. For instance, activists did what they could to directly block mountain-top demolition in West Virginia; but also took some of the debris back to the metropolis and dumped it in the ATM vestibules of Morgan-Chase bank. Successful people’s war (think, say, of Cuba) takes place throughout a land: in the mountains, the universities, the plantations, the city streets. It always starts small, not through big invasions. Nor can it possibly succeed through any one of these zones, especially the parliamentary. The ultimate source of strength is whatever is closest to popular struggle at the point of life’s resistance to capital. This is where small beginnings can germinate into transformative movements. Mere spontaneity will never work if the points of struggle cannot connect each with the other, and equally important, if they do not become conscious of what it is that they are undertaking and where it can lead them. Here is where the matter of an ecosocialist vision to break out of the traps of fragmentation enters. As this grows, it does so within the struggle for life and against capital, and also connects with international movements, because it is the earth itself that “global capital” has invaded and occupied. In no sense, except the narrowest immediacy, can an ecosocialist movement be restricted within national boundaries. Hopefully, as the international ecosocialist movement matures, it can provide a forum for a conscious planning of such campaigns.
.
CD: The Dark Mountain Project argues that it’s too late to save industrial civilization and that it is futile to try to reduce its impact by way of green technology, regulation, and renewable energy. Rather, we should be thinking about how we are going to live through its fall and what we can learn from its collapse. What is your take on the Dark Mountain Project?
.
JK: As capital inexorably destroys its own conditions of production, our so-called civilization is undergoing a process of devolution leading to collapse. Gramsci famously saw this as the time when the old order is dying and the new one cannot yet be born, and he foresaw that under such grim circumstances a great deal of weird behavior would emerge. The Dark Mountain project is one such piece of weirdness, to be classified with survivalists and various militias as different kinds of primitivist reversion. Its class base, however, is not drawn from right-wing backwoods types and the dispossessed, but from intellectuals and artistes seeking fulfillment through romantic rejection of the world. This is an illusion, nor can it go very far.
.
The Project’s virtue lies in a slogan much favored on its website: “Giving up on Environmentalism.” As I noted, environmentalism is very much part of the problem. But instead of confronting the issue where it is actually located, namely, society and the way it transforms nature, the Project simply evades social relations, or rather, continues existing tendencies to the point of extermination. On the contrary, I see capitalism as a society so hollowed out by processes of alienation as to have become radically de-sociated. So, in its later (i.e., present) stages, capitalism turns into a collection of ego-particles agitated by the forces of the market into desperate and fearful searches for individualized sensation: living in gated communities, traveling about in mutually isolated cars, and plugged into remote forces of mass cultural manipulation. This is both a sign of the ecological crisis and a way it is perpetuated, for individual egos can do nothing to mend our relations with nature.
.
The only rational way of overcoming the crisis and of restoring society and nature is through the recovery of ways of as-sociation, that is, through forms of “commoning” capable of resisting the inroads of capital and building solidarity with others. Only in society can the human animal fulfill its “nature” and do justice to nature. Organized from below into a new society we can prevail in the struggle for life that marks this epoch. The Dark Mountain Project offers instead, further isolation, further self-centeredness, and further disintegration.
.
Climate Change is Bad, But Not Our Only Problem
.
CD: The UN biodiversity report coming out this summer says that the case for global action to stop the destruction of the natural world is even more important than the argument for tackling climate change. Do you concur with this importance attached to protecting biodiversity?
.
JK: Climate change is a menace without parallel in the whole history of humanity. Its spectacular and dramatic character can generate narratives capable of arousing general concern and thus provide a stimulus to build movements of resistance. But climate change is not the sole problem we face, even if this property makes it seem as such. Hopefully, the UN’s forthcoming report about the stupendous die-off now underway can have the salutary effect of disabusing people of this illusion.
.
I’m not happy with prioritizing either of these massive processes of eco-disintegration, because to do so becomes part of the artificial separation noted above. Better to realize that we are part of one ecosphere suffering from a planetary disease — a kind of cancer produced by Homo sapiens who has blighted nature with the accumulation of capital. Within the myriad disorders set forth, there arise configurations affecting various “tissues” of the planetary body, with innumerable secondary and tertiary interactions, many of them unpredictable and chaotic. Climate change is one such, species loss another. They need to be seen in relation to each other, and to the cancer of which they are symptoms.

As the chief driving factor in species loss is habitat alteration, climate change is most definitely implicated in the great die-off, whether by heat, drought or flooding. But the two threats are not structurally identical, nor can dealing with the one be considered ipso facto adequate for dealing with the other. Consider the laudable goal of diminishing concentrations of atmospheric CO2, for example, Bill McKibben’s “350” campaign to bring greenhouse gas concentrations below the current level of about 390 ppm. Now it’s possible to imagine this being done, though fantastically difficult. But there are two logical strategies toward this end — either lowering carbon emissions and/or augmenting carbon sequestration — and these can have drastically different implications for species loss. Sequestering carbon, say, in the ocean, might alleviate the greenhouse effect — at the cost, however, of worsening the lot of countless creatures through acidification of the seas, which destroys shelled sea-life including the corals that provide the dwelling places for innumerable aquatic species. Similarly, some of the technical fixes now being considered to directly lower temperature, as by injecting SO2 into the atmosphere, are obviously reckless of the integrity of living beings. Just so, are the strategies of biofuel development that require monocropping, thereby sacrificing biodiversity. Thus there can be a real contradiction between dealing with these two threats if they are regarded in isolation.
.
The rational way, then, to contend with any and all ecological menaces is by developing a vision of sufficient universality that regards them as aspects of a common ecosphere undergoing a common assault. This returns us to the overarching question developed in The Enemy of Nature, of capital accumulation as the “efficient cause” of the ecological crisis. Only within the framewotk of a revolutionary ecosocialist society can we deal with the twinned crises of climate change and species loss — and others as well — within a coherent program centered around the flourishing of life.
.
Here I would add one aspect of the great extermination now underway: the “un-flourishing of life.” Nothing so indicts Homo sapiens (subspecies: capitalisticus) as the mass murder of species at a rate far greater than anything done over the last 70 million years. The fact that so much of this happens unspectacularly, indeed, silently and with the elimination of life forms that we have never bothered to knowabout, much less appreciate for their intrinsic value, only deepens the indictment. May this realization spur our awakening.
.
CD: What are the implications of Deepwater Horizon?
.
JK: In itself, the oil spill (this is being written in the first half of July) is hideous, a concoction of corporate crime and government corruption/incompetence. But without diminishing its significance one bit, we should consider the BP spill not in itself but as part of a larger aggregate of the lesions inflicted on Mother Earth by the capitalist energy barons, not limited to but including:  spills elsewhere, for example, the Niger River delta, which dwarf Deepwater Horizon in scale, and have driven life expectancy in the delta down to about 40 years; “dead zones” in the Gulf from Mississippi River run-off of nitrogen generated by ethanol production (as fuel additive) upstream. These are quite comparable in scale to the release of crude petroleum from Deepwater Horizon; studies of large marine mammals throughout the seven seas, including sperm whales, disclose such a burden of toxics, chiefly deriving from petroleum that was “successfully” extracted, as to guarantee the extinction of these great creatures within a century; there are 27,000 abandoned wells in the Gulf of Mexico. If you study the frequency of drilling over time, you will see the all-too-familiar “hockey-stick,” or exponential curve as “peak oil” and economic depression drive the oil barons mad.



.
JOEL KOVEL’S Capitalism: The Enemy of Nature is a must read introduction to the need to develop an ecosocialist perspective on ecological struggles, if we are to surmount and leave behind the utterly compromised big environmental groups.
•••
EDITOR’S ADDENDUM
The business system can never stop; it can never change what its core DNA dictates. The same cast of characters and criminals that betrayed the Gulf of Mexico and its animals, are now again at it, responding to the same pressures while the grave for the Gulf’s ecosystem and its many victims is still warm. Meanwhile, as it happened during the disaster itself, we hear little or nothing from the Big Tent enviros, by now utterly absorbed into the ways of the Corporate System. With defenders like that, we’ll be lucky if even bacteria survive.

October 12, 2010, 11:45 AM

There they go again!
White House Is Lifting Ban on Deep-Water Drilling

1:15 p.m. | Updated WASHINGTON – The Obama administration announced on Tuesday that it is lifting a moratorium on deepwater drilling that was imposed after the BP oil spill after imposing new rules intended to prevent another such disaster.
“We have made and continue to make significant progress in reducing the risks associated with deepwater drilling,” Interior Secretary
Ken Salazar told reporters on a conference call. Therefore, he said, “I have decided that it is now appropriate to lift the suspension on deepwater drilling for those operators that are able to clear the higher bar that we have set.’The administration imposed the moratorium after the blowout of a BP well in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20 led to the largest offshore oil spill in American history. But the White House has come under intense pressure from the industry and from regional officials and businesses that have complained about the economic impact. The moratorium was supposed to run through Nov. 30 but the administration has been working on changes designed to improve safety, oversight and environmental protection standards. The Interior Department nearly two weeks ago issued new rules governing areas like well casing and cementing, blowout preventers, safety certification, emergency response and worker training.

 

Mr. Bromwich, director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, was assigned to draft a report for Mr. Salazar providing a blueprint for safely resuming drilling. Even after the moratorium is lifted, officials have said it could be weeks or even months before new permits are granted to start up operations again.The moratorium idled 33 deepwater rigs in the gulf, affecting many jobs and triggering anger in the region. Senator Mary Landrieu, a Louisiana Democrat, has blocked the confirmation of Mr. Obama’s nominee to run the Office of Management and Budget, Jack Lew, until the moratorium is eased. Environmentalists have called on the White House to extend the freeze on deepwater drilling and extend it to shallow-water drilling.