ONE Capitalism: A Creation Story
The passage contends that the ongoing ecological crisis is not inherent to human nature but a
consequence of capitalism's emergence about 500 years ago, marked by perpetual growth and an
unsustainable take-more-than-give-back formula. The term "Capitalocene" is proposed instead of
the Anthropocene to emphasize capitalism's role. The narrative challenges the common belief
that capitalism naturally evolved, revealing a darker history with roots in specific times and
places. This alternative perspective urges a reconsideration of capitalism's impact on the
environment and prompts questions about its origins, challenging widely accepted narratives
about the natural development of this economic system.
A forgotten revolution
In the 1300s, commoners across Europe rebelled against feudalism, demanding control over the
land and resisting unpaid labor and taxes. While many early rebellions were crushed, the Black
Death's aftermath shifted the balance of power, giving commoners more bargaining power.
Peasant revolts in England, Italy, and France, such as the 1381 Peasants' Revolt, successfully
dismantled serfdom. This revolution resulted in improved conditions for commoners, with rising
wages, reduced rents, and ecological regeneration. The period from 1350 to 1500 is described as
the "golden age of the European proletariat," marking a transformative and largely forgotten
chapter in history.
Backlash
The article challenges the conventional narrative of capitalism's emergence, arguing that it wasn't
a natural or peaceful transition but a result of organized violence, mass impoverishment, and the
destruction of self-sufficient subsistence economies through a process called 'enclosure.' This
wave of dispossession, particularly in England between 1760 and 1870, coincided with the
Industrial Revolution, leading to a devastating human cost. Life expectancy plummeted, and the
period from 1500 to the 1800s became one of the bloodiest and most tumultuous in history.
Capitalism, far from solving problems, created a state of misery and hardship previously unseen
in pre-capitalist times.
Growth as colonization
The rise of capitalism, intertwined with enclosure in Europe, also involved the colonization of
the Americas and the global South. Colonization was a response to elite disaccumulation caused
by peasant revolutions in Europe, providing a fix for accumulating wealth abroad. Vast amounts
of silver and gold were extracted, contributing to European capitalism's growth. Colonization
fueled the Industrial Revolution by appropriating lands for plantation agriculture and exploiting
millions through the slave trade. This process wasn't separate from enclosure; both were forms of
internal colonization. As capitalism grew, new markets were sought, leading to the destruction of
the global South's industries and their transformation into captive markets.
The paradox of artificial scarcity
The rise of capitalism, following enclosure, imposed a new economic regime on Europe's
peasants, subjecting them to temporary, productivity-based leases on land. This transformed
collective cooperation into desperate competition, intensifying productivity for profit rather than
local sufficiency. The paradox of artificial scarcity emerged, where capitalism's growth depended
on creating and maintaining scarcity through state-enforced enclosure. Colonization further
exemplified this strategy, disrupting subsistence agriculture and communal support systems,
fostering dependence on wages. The Lauderdale Paradox highlighted the inverse relation
between private riches (scarcity-driven profits) and public wealth (abundant, freely accessible
resources), underlining capitalism's exploitative nature
The great separation
Enclosure and colonization facilitated European capitalism, but a deeper transformation was
needed. Early capitalists sought not only cheap labor but a shift in beliefs, requiring a new
narrative about nature. Throughout human history, animism prevailed, viewing all beings as
interconnected. However, as empires rose, a new worldview emerged, separating the spiritual
realm from the living world. The Church and capitalists feared animistic ideas, leading to their
suppression. Francis Bacon and René Descartes played pivotal roles, deeming nature a "common
harlot" and reducing it to mechanical philosophy. Dualism and objectification of nature emerged,
paving the way for exploitation and ecological devastation.
The body as Raw Material
European elites, inspired by Descartes' dualism, aimed to alter beliefs about both nature and
labor during the revolutionary period. Peasant work, guided by seasonal rhythms and a balance
of sufficiency and desire, conflicted with the disciplined labor needed for capital accumulation.
Enclosure displaced peasants, leading to an underclass surviving through begging and theft.
Governments introduced laws forcing people to work, employing extreme violence against the
dispossessed. Philosophers, exploiting Descartes' dualism, saw the body as the repository of
hidden labor-power. Descartes' views justified controlling the body, suppressing its pleasures,
and promoting values of productivity, time, and respect for authority, central to capitalist culture.
Cheap Nature
In the 1600s, a new perspective emerged, separating nature from civilization, enabling capitalists
to objectify and exploit it cheaply. Enclosure and colonization marked massive, uncompensated
appropriations of nature, extracting resources and labor virtually for free. Descartes' dualism
justified subordinating women, categorizing them as closer to 'nature' and reinforcing their
exploitation without compensation. Colonized peoples in the global South were dehumanized,
cast as 'savages,' facilitating the theft of their bodies and resources. Dualism served to eradicate
animist thought, imposing a 'civilized' versus 'savage' binary, aiming to colonize not just bodies
but minds. Colonial violence sought to control the mental universe of the colonized.
Retweeting Descartes
The legacy of dualist ontology persists in our language and attitudes towards nature. Terms like
'natural resources,' 'raw materials,' and 'ecosystem services' reinforce the perception of nature as
subordinate. Even conscientious language, like 'the environment,' frames the living world as a
passive backdrop. Dualism's influence extends to postmodernist thought, which questions grand
narratives but ultimately reinforces the idea that reality is constructed by humans. The
nonchalant response to mass extinction statistics stems from the belief in human separation from
the natural world, a core principle of capitalism. Descartes' vision of mastering nature endures,
exemplified by Google's life sciences company 'Verily' aiming to "defeat Mother Nature" with
truth.
Rise of the Juggernaut – Chapter 2
The conventional narrative of capitalist growth, tied to technological advancements like the
steam engine, paints a rosy picture of limitless progress. However, a critical examination of
capitalism's longer history reveals a crucial omission: growth has always entailed the
appropriation of energy and labor from nature and specific human groups through enclosure,
colonization, and dispossession. While technology enhances productivity, its primary
contribution to growth lies in enabling capital to intensify the process of appropriation. Historical
examples, from sugar-milling innovations in the 1500s to the exploitation of fossil fuels in the
19th and 20th centuries, demonstrate that technology accelerates the speed and scale of
appropriation, fueling the exponential growth of GDP.
The Iron Law of capital
Capitalism's distinctiveness lies in its relentless pursuit of profit through perpetual growth,
illustrated by the formula M → C → M' → C' → M'' → C'' → M''' ... Unlike localized businesses
focused on specific needs, capitalist corporations like Amazon, Facebook, or Exxon are beholden
to a structural imperative for growth. Investors demand not just profit but accelerated growth,
creating a self-reinforcing cycle that compels aggressive expansion. This growth imperative
leads to unethical practices and a disregard for social and environmental consequences. The
expansionary drive isn't just a CEO's greed; it's an inherent characteristic of the capitalist system,
an unstoppable machine programmed for endless accumulation.
Chasing the next fix
Capitalism's compounding growth, often underestimated due to its exponential nature, leads to
unforeseen consequences. The mathematician's chessboard fable illustrates the surreal
acceleration of compound growth. A 3% annual growth rate, typical in the global economy,
results in doubling every twenty-three years. This aggressive expansion, crucial for capitalist
success, fuels innovation but also triggers violent fixes like enclosures, colonizations, and wars.
The incessant need for new investments, exemplified by the pharmaceutical, beef, arms, and oil
industries, illustrates capitalism's iron law: grow or perish. The infrastructure supporting capital's
expansion includes limited liability, corporate personhood, stock markets, and more.
From private imperative to public obsession
The roots of today's growth imperative can be traced to the Great Depression, which prompted
governments to focus on economic accounting. Simon Kuznets' GDP metric, developed in
response, lacked cost accounting and, despite its limitations, became a dominant indicator at the
Bretton Woods Conference. Initially, growth was pursued for specific purposes, but after the
Cold War, the competition between the West and the USSR shifted focus to GDP growth.
Neoliberalism, arising in the late 1970s, redirected government priorities, internalizing the
interests of capital. In the global South, post-colonial progress was disrupted by Western
interventions promoting structural adjustments that prioritized capital accumulation over human
welfare.
The straight-jacket
In today's globalized world, nations are compelled to prioritize GDP growth to attract foreign
investment. Governments, rich and poor alike, engage in a race to deregulate, cut costs, and
please international capital, perpetuating a self-imposed structural adjustment. GDP growth, once
a means to improve human well-being, is now pursued for its own sake, tied to capitalism's
welfare. The "productivity trap" emerges as automation leads to job loss, necessitating perpetual
growth to stave off social collapse. Governments face dilemmas, needing growth to fund public
services without taxing the rich, and falling into a debt trap, requiring continuous growth to
service debts. Geopolitical power also hinges on GDP size, intensifying the growth imperative
and fueling ecological challenges.
A world devoured
The pursuit of growth for its own sake, termed growthism, has led to an unprecedented
ecological impact since the 1980s, surpassing the effects of historical enclosures and
colonizations. The graph of raw material consumption exhibits an alarming ascent, reaching 92
billion tons by 2017, more than double the planet's sustainable threshold. This material extraction
contributes to habitat destruction, climate change, and biodiversity loss. Simultaneously,
increased fossil fuel consumption for economic growth intensifies carbon emissions,
exacerbating climate breakdown. As GDP growth propels material and energy demands, a
holistic perspective recognizes growth as the commodification of nature, revealing its destructive
implications.
Colonialism 2.0
The ecological impact of capitalism's growthism is unevenly distributed, with high-income
nations contributing disproportionately. Per capita consumption patterns, such as meat and
plastic use, reveal stark inequalities, with affluent countries surpassing sustainable thresholds.
The global North's responsibility is further evident in historical emissions; 92% of overshoot
emissions are attributed to the North, with the United States alone accounting for 40%. This
atmospheric colonisation parallels earlier resource exploitation during colonialism. The South,
despite minimal historical contributions, bears the brunt of climate impacts, facing economic
losses and fatalities. Acknowledging these colonial dimensions is crucial for a comprehensive
understanding of the climate crisis.
How to think about ‘limits’ in the 21st century
The concept of perpetual economic growth is flawed, contrasting with natural growth that
reaches maturity. The capitalist pursuit of endless growth, unlike the leveling off seen in nature,
disregards ecological limits. The 1972 MIT report, "Limits to Growth," warned of resource
depletion and environmental crisis by 2030-2040 under continued growth. Despite initial
popularity, the idea faced backlash, but the 2008 global financial crisis and climate awakening
revived discussions on limits. The new paradigm of "planetary boundaries" defines ecological
limits, emphasizing the interconnectedness of Earth's processes. Crossing these boundaries risks
irreversible collapse, urging a shift toward sustainable economic models.
CHAPTER 3
Will Technology Save Us?
Despite mounting evidence linking economic growth to ecological decline, the prevailing
ideology of growthism persists, deeply ingrained in our economic system. Drawing a parallel to
Charles Darwin's paradigm-shifting findings, the conflict between ecological science and
growthism remains. The narrative promoting indefinite growth, relying on technology solutions
to climate change, assumes significant risks. The belief that technological advancements,
renewable energy, and efficiency improvements can make continuous growth sustainable poses a
dangerous gamble with potentially irreversible consequences.
Gambling in Paris
The Paris Agreement, hailed as a climate change breakthrough in 2015, falls short as the sum of
countries' emissions reduction pledges doesn't align with limiting global warming to 1.5°C or
even 2°C. The backstory reveals that acknowledging the required emissions cuts could hinder
economic growth, prompting reliance on an unproven technology called BECCS (bio-energy
with carbon capture and storage) as a seemingly miraculous solution. This little-known plan now
holds the fate of our planet, underscoring the lack of awareness and consent in the decisions
shaping our future.
Jumping off a cliff
Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), a key element in climate models and the
Paris Agreement, faces four critical issues: scalability uncertainty, potential famines from
massive biofuel plantations, ecological disasters, and the risk of triggering uncontrollable climate
tipping points. Despite scientific consensus on these risks, reliance on BECCS persists,
highlighting the dangerous and uncertain nature of this technology. The European Academies’
Science Advisory Council strongly advises against such fantasies and emphasizes the urgent
need for aggressive emissions cuts.
The fight for 1.5
The IPCC's October 2018 report, acknowledging the challenges of negative emissions
technologies, emphasized the urgency of halving global emissions by 2030 and reaching net-zero
by 2050 to limit global warming to 1.5°C. This radical trajectory sparked climate activism
worldwide, with movements like Extinction Rebellion and the Green New Deal gaining
momentum. The UK declared a climate emergency, and the U.S. saw a historic conversation
about climate policy, challenging entrenched climate denialism.
Green growth?
Transitioning to 100% renewable energy is crucial, but the notion of "green growth," relying on
perpetual economic expansion, is flawed. The current pace of renewable energy deployment can't
keep up with growing energy demand driven by economic growth. Additionally, the extraction
of minerals for clean energy technologies poses ecological and social challenges, making
unlimited growth unsustainable. A just and feasible energy transition requires rethinking the
paradigm of perpetual economic growth.
The planet remade
Solar radiation management, a geoengineering proposal to cool the Earth by injecting aerosols
into the stratosphere, is gaining attention. While cheap and relatively easy, it poses risks such as
ozone layer damage, altered rainfall patterns, and unpredictable side effects. Critics argue that
geoengineering is an ecologically incoherent approach, distracting from the urgent need to cut
emissions.
Out of the frying pan, into the flames
The notion of achieving green growth by decoupling economic growth from resource use is
challenged by scientific studies. Despite optimistic scenarios involving efficiency improvements,
carbon taxes, and technological innovations, research indicates that absolute decoupling,
necessary for sustainable growth, is not feasible on a global scale. Green growth remains elusive.
The thing about technology
Efficiency improvements, often hailed as a solution for achieving green growth, face the
challenge of the Jevons Paradox, where savings from innovation are reinvested to expand
production, driving further resource consumption. Historical examples like the steam engine,
chainsaw, and contemporary technologies reveal that technological advances are harnessed not to
reduce overall consumption but to facilitate more production. The growth imperative inherent in
capitalism drives this pattern, rendering hopes for absolute decoupling baseless. Even optimistic
scenarios of technological innovation show that sustained decoupling is impossible, emphasizing
the need to reevaluate growth-oriented policies.
What about recycling?
The concept of a circular economy, aimed at recycling and sustainable resource use, is hailed as
a solution for achieving green growth. However, recycling faces fundamental challenges. A
substantial portion of material use cannot be recycled due to degradation or incorporation into
buildings. Moreover, recycling poses economic challenges for capitalism, internalizing material
costs and limiting the potential for perpetual growth. The growth imperative undermines the
circular economy's viability within the current economic framework, suggesting that pursuing
circularity may be more feasible in a post-growth economy.
The dystopia of green growth
The notion of green growth faces significant challenges, prompting proponents to turn to
theoretical possibilities. However, imposing a cap on resource use and waste is a pragmatic
solution proposed by ecological economists to address ecological crises. Green growth
advocates, despite advocating for perpetual GDP growth, resist such caps, revealing a reluctance
to confront capitalism's inherent dependence on resource extraction for growth. Exploring
hypothetical scenarios, it becomes apparent that restricting material exploitation could lead to
intensified exploitation of human labor or aggressive rent-seeking behavior, indicating the
unrealistic nature of the green growth narrative.
The unquestioned assumption
The relentless pursuit of economic growth, often at the expense of ecological concerns, is
maintained without questioning the core assumption that perpetual growth is necessary. This
unexamined belief leads to desperate attempts to reconcile growth with environmental
sustainability. The alternative proposal suggests challenging the idea that continuous economic
expansion is essential, encouraging exploration of a different, sustainable economic model.