next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects
Your message didn't get posted on sust-mar? Probably it contained html coding.
Use your "Format" pull-down menu to switch to plain text format.
____________________________________________________________________________
Defining Capitalism
by David Orton
Introductory note: An activist in Nova Scotia, apparently quite sympathetic
to Paul Hawken, wrote and asked me for my definition of capitalism. This
short essay is my delayed response to his question. The question about
defining capitalism was also posted on the internet discussion group "left
bio" and resulted in quite a number of thoughtful postings, which helped in
clarifying my own ideas.
Paul Hawken was speaking on Prince Edward Island this summer. His talks on
the Island were being promoted by mainstream environmental circles in the
Maritimes. He is one of the three authors of a 1999 book called _Natural
Capitalism: Creating The Next Industrial Revolution_ (Paul Hawken, Amory
Lovins and L. Hunter Lovins). I had made some critical comments in passing
on _Natural Capitalism_, in a talk I had given to the federal Green Party
in August of 2000 in Ottawa ("Is Left Biocentrism Relevant to Green
Parties?"). These comments had been circulated by the PEI environmental
group Earth Action in their Weekly Bulletin #41, devoted to the Hawken PEI
visit, in addition to other critical comments on the book made by the
Australian Ted Trainor and Michael Albert from the United States. My
remarks on _Natural Capitalism_ were made in the context of trying to bring
up a fundamental dilemma which all greens/environmentalists and leftists
face in this society - that is, "whether we believe industrial capitalism
is here to stay and we must work with it, or whether we must oppose it,
even if there is not yet a clear alternative. This fundamental dilemma goes
back to the shallow/deep distinction made by Arne Naess in 1972. How we
solve this dilemma determines what kind of ecological politics we can
pursue." Hawken and co-authors are promoted in this society because, apart
from the worthiness of their ideas, they present the illusion that
capitalism can transform itself ecologically (and socially), while
remaining essentially "capitalist." After all, these authors are not
calling for de-industrialization like left biocentrists but for "creating
the next industrial revolution", the sub-title of their book. (My comments
relating to _Natural Capitalism_, from the Green Party talk, are attached
below.)
In a radio interview that I heard some time ago, David Suzuki spoke about
an occasion a real estate agent was viewing his house in Vancouver in order
to determine a "market" price. Conventional capitalist wisdom usually
speaks about willing sellers and willing buyers agreeing on a price in a
free market. In the interview, Suzuki spoke about various labours of love
in his garden which he had undertaken to please his father, and how these
were suffused with memories for him which were incapable of being turned
into "a fair market price" for selling purposes, and which were
incomprehensible to the realtor. What we see here is the obvious, that even
just from a human-centered point of view, some things are viewed as
priceless and cannot be valued economically. The capitalist economic
calculus excludes much which is of fundamental importance to human beings,
as well as excluding the intrinsic interests of other species and the
natural world itself.
I see capitalism as a social as well as an economic system. Capitalism's
prime motivation is the accumulation of Capital. Whereas it is society
which should be determining the nature of the economy, under capitalism it
is the other way around - the economy basically determines the nature of
the society. In this way, capitalism and socialism/communism are similar.
Both are social systems, although they differ economically. One appeals to
individual greed (usually called "individual enterprise" or "what is in it
for me?") and the other, theoretically, to social justice. Both are
predicated on continuing economic growth, do not acknowledge a finite
ecological world, and do not accept what have been called "steady state"
economies. Thus both are fundamentally anti-ecological. Both link their
forms of economy with human-centered political systems. In the case of
capitalism, so-called free markets are linked to "democracy" and individual
rights. There is the right to vote (some capitalist votes are, because of
the unequal distribution of Capital, more equal/influential than others),
but not necessarily the right to affordable housing, education, health
care, etc.
Capitalism seems to require structural social inequalities to socially
motivate a labour force, socialism theoretically does not. At the consumer
level, capitalism requires discontent, so that an individual's sense of
"vital needs" continually expands, thus creating new markets which then
enable Capital to expand. Wal-Mart stores are an indicator success story
for contemporary capitalism. But for radical environmentalists, Wal-Marts
are examples of irresponsible consumer heaven - the counter to the frugal
lifestyle needed in countries like Canada and the United States.
Both capitalist and socialist/communist societies largely reflect the
economies which underpin them. Their social systems are human-centered,
although one is individually centered (capitalism) while the other
(socialism/communism) is collectively centered. Both take an increasing
human population growth for granted and disregard the intrinsic interests
of other species. Capitalism has out-performed socialism/communism from the
point of view of the availability of consumer goods in society. As an
economic system, socialism has not so far solved the problem of how to
truly motivate economic activity without appealing to self interest. What
has been referred to since the time of Marx, as "the means of production"
are individually (including corporately) owned under capitalism, while
state or collective ownership prevails under socialism/communism.
Capitalism requires a class-divided society of those who own Capital and
those who do not. As the ecological crisis has intensified, various
attempts have been made to "cost" Nature so as it can enter into capitalist
economic calculations. The book _Natural Capitalism_ is a good example,
although unsuccessful, of this costing attempt.
Under capitalism and under socialism, nature is considered both a source
of potential "resources" and a free sink for industrial wastes. Yet with
both systems only some aspects of Nature can be considered "resources" and
brought into production, e.g. trees, fish, minerals and, more recently, the
ultimate capitalist conceit of claiming "ownership" over the genomes of
medicinal and food plants, and even humans. Many of Nature's creatures have
no obvious capitalist economic value, also the air we humans and other
creatures breathe, or the rain that bathes us all. The ecosystem which
surrounds and supports us, and of which humans are an intrinsic part, is
necessary and vital in its own terms. It cannot be looked at from a
perspective of the accumulation of Capital. Yet the false promise of books
like _Natural Capitalism_ is that, somehow, the capitalist economic model
can be bent or extended to incorporate ecology and the obvious social and
structural inequities which are part of global capitalism:
"While there may be no right' way to value a forest, a river, or a child,
the
wrong way is to give no value at all. If there are doubts about how to value
a seven-hundred-year-old tree, ask how much it would cost to make a new
one. Or a new atmosphere, or a new culture." (_Natural Capitalism_, p. 321)
Yet the above is a binary view of our realities: either we "cost" using
the capitalist theoretical framework or we have to throw up our hands. In
other words, the Paul Hawkens of this world say the ecological and social
crises that we face cannot be resolved within any other economic framework
than the very one which has created the mess we are in. This is a way to
exclude any new thinking which is fundamentally subversive to industrial
capitalist society. It is the new thinking which interests left
biocentrists and other deep ecology supporters and which leads me to reject
the basic thesis put forward in _Natural Capitalism_.
David Orton, August 28, 2003
************
Below is the text circulated by Earth Action from myself, from the Ottawa
federal Green Party talk in August of 2000:
Natural capitalism
One way of prolonging the life of industrial society was through the
propagation and acceptance of the concept of 'sustainable development.'
Helga and I went to the "1st
Planetary Meeting of Green Parties" in Rio, May 30/31, 1992 as observers,
and the statement coming out of that meeting endorsed sustainable
development. But sustainable development
is now 'old hat.'
The latest "offering," to encourage activists to continue working with
and not in fundamental opposition to this society, is to be found in the
1999 book _Natural Capitalism_, by Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins, and L. Hunter
Lovins. This book, by its title, suggests that capitalism is "natural", and
that Nature can be treated within a capitalist framework. The authors see
the solutions to the environmental crisis as bringing Nature within this
accounting framework. This assumes that forests, seas, wild animals, etc.
have "prices," not, as in deep ecology, intrinsic values. Also, that the
inherent growth/profit/consumer-oriented capitalist economic model should
be worked with, and not opposed as fundamentally anti-ecological. The
authors aim to show through their many examples that "resources" (I do not
myself use this term) can be saved, more profits can be made, growth can
continue, and employment can increase if we start "costing" Nature. This is
the ultimate anthropocentrism!
There are lots of interesting examples in this book, of waste being
eliminated and more profits being made. The book also speaks of "human
capitalism", although this is a secondary focus, where "responsible
government" is combined with "vital entrepreneurship". Curitiba in Brazil,
is used as an example of this human capitalism. _Natural Capitalism_
acknowledges that natural capital is rapidly declining and becoming a
limiting factor on continued growth. Increasing population is taken for
granted by the authors. Generally in this book, there is a much more
progressive view of capitalism, in alleged harmony with Nature and with a
social conscience. So this is against Thatcherism or Reaganism. But the
fundamental questions remain for the activists' dilemma. Can one reform
capitalism? Is it here forever? Or do we work from the position that we
must create an alternative?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Visit the Green Web Home Page at:
http://home.ca.inter.net/~greenweb/
Our e-mail address is now <greenweb@ca.inter.net>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
=================
Subscribe to Earth Action's Weekly Bulletin (it's free). Send an email to <majordomo@flora.org> with the following command in the body of your email message:
subscribe earth-action
*****************
Sharon Labchuk
Earth Action
Breadalbane RR#2
Canada C0A 1E0
phone 902-621-0719
slabchuk@isn.net
===============
____________________________________________________________________________
Did a friend forward this to you? Join sust-mar yourself!
Just send 'subscribe sust-mar' to mailto:majordomo@chebucto.ca
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects