December 30, 2008

capitalism –

The poverty-culprit and the eco-culprit

capitalism

Around the 1670’s, as land held in common is privatized, and landless peasants are forced to either sell themselves for wages or join the swelling ranks of the poor, the two mainstays of the capitalist enterprise are decreed into being – land (more generally, privatized Nature) and labor. Both are fictitious, of course, because land (privatized Nature) is the Earth which belongs to no one, and labor are people whose life experience cannot be made to fit money calculations.

In the 19^th century, Karl Marx (1818-1883) points to the exploitation of labor, tracing it to the necessity of minimizing costs of production so as to maximize profits. Marx also sees the exploitation of Nature, and attributes it to the same cause:

“All progress in capitalistic agriculture is a progress in the art, not only of robbing the laborer, but of robbing the soil.”

Only during the 20^th century, however, has it become abundantly clear that capitalism, with its reliance on a high through-put to make saleable commodities, on short-term profits, and a narrow concept of efficiency, is not only increasing poverty worldwide (the opposite pole to its concentration of wealth), but also degrading the environment to the point of collapse. Capitalism is blind to life, whether human or environmental. Its need for profit-making does not take into account either the life experience of the poor, or the planet’s ecology.

As an economic system, capitalism is based on legal exploitation for the purpose of money-profit extraction. No exploitation, no profit.

(Marx, quoted pp. 76 and 191. See the present document under “History with an Old Testament Template,” “The Enlightenment,” “Karl Marx.” Also under “From Investments to global Control,” “1867, Karl Marx.” And also under “Essential Features of Capitalism,” Number 1, “Profit;” Number 2, “Exploitation of the People and the Land;” Number 3, “Unlimited economic Growth;” and Number 4, “Economic Inequality).

Definition: Capitalism is an economic system characterized by:

* Private or corporate ownership of capital goods.

* Investments determined by private decision rather than state decisions.

* The production, distribution and prices of goods determined by competition in a “free market” (Webster’s New College Dictionary 1975).

The model for the “free market” is originally a place where people exchange money for the goods they need.

In the present, “neo-classical” stage of the “free market,” however, the word “free” has no referent except the freedom of those who have money.

The global economic Order: The global economic order (global market economy) is the worldwide economic system whereby goods in short supply are produced and distributed, for competitive prices, within and across national boundaries, to all those who have the money to purchase them. Large capitalist corporations control the production and distribution of social goods, so as to maximize the money value of their stocks. Calling themselves “the market,” these corporations claim that “the market” must be “deregulated” and “free” – meaning not accountable to either governments or people, no matter the deleterious effects of “its” decisions on human and environmental life.

In The road to serfdom (1944), British economist Friedrich von Hayek (1899-1992) defines the “free market”:

“Parties in the market should be free to buy and sell at any price at which they can find a partner to the transaction – free to produce, buy and sell anything that can be produced or sold at all.”

(McMurtry 1999, pp. 33-34, 36-41, 46 130 and 265, summarized in Hall 2008c, pp. 29, 45-46 and 50. von Hayek, quoted in McMurtry 1999, pp. 46 and 265).

The cultural Antecedents of Capitalism

The Epic of Gilgamesh: Around 1,750 B.C.E., in Babylonia, the valley between the Tigris and the Euphrates, around the time of King Hammurabi (1792-1750 B.C.E.), an anonymous poet writes the Epic of Gilgamesh. It is a saga recounting the exploits of King Gilgamesh, of Uruk, Sumaria, said to have lived 1,000 years earlier (that is around 2,750 B.C.E.). The young, half-divine King Gilgamesh, afraid of death after his friend’s premature death, sets out to find Uta-napishti, the immortal sole survivor of a great flood (the Deluge), so as to obtain for himself the secret to eternal life.

At the boundary between the world of mortals and immortals, Shiduri, goddess of wisdom, warns him:

“The life that you seek, you never will find.

When the gods created mankind

Death they dispensed to mankind.

Life they kept for themselves.”

Subsequently, Uta-napishti echoes Shiduri’s message, and Gilgamesh returns to Uruk, accepting the failure of his quest for transcendence, and re-awakened to the wonders of home.

The Epic affirms life in the here and now, and, in recognition of the fundamental and inescapable unity of humanity and nature, counsels acceptance of mortality. Embrace the life that you do have. Celebrate the human condition, its joys, its losses, and its limitations – including death!

Within 1,000 years, however, the Epic’s humble message, would be supplanted by that of the Tale of Abraham. Whereas Gilgamesh found peace in the here and now, Abraham would “go forth” seeking both earthly triumph and future salvation. Abraham, not Gilgamesh, would provide the mythological foundation for Christianity and Islam, and in time, for all of Western culture.

(Noble 2005, pp. 11-17, 21-23, 145 and 209, summarized in Hall 2008b, pp. 1-2).

The Tale of Abraham: In 550 B.C.E., a new Babylonian kingdom (the New Babylonian Empire) arises in that same fertile land, site of the original Babylonian kingdom which produced the author of the Epic of Gilgamesh. A literary master now writes a saga about a man, Abraham, said to have lived more than 1,000 years earlier (that is, around 1,750 B.C.E., at about the time when the author of the Epic of Gilgamesh was writing). Abraham is a resident of Harran (Haran, Carrhae), Mesopotamia, near the Syrian border, in present-day Turkey.

Without first having undergone a trial, Abraham is enjoyed by God to go forth:

“Go forth from your native land, and from your father’s home, to a land that I will show you. I will make of you a great nation, bless you, and make great your name, that it may be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you. And through you, shall bless themselves all the communities on earth.”

The patriarch of the Israelites is enjoined to quit the settled life he has as a native in the advanced civilization of Mesopotamia, and embark upon the life of a stranger in other lands, wandering in blind faith toward a destination both unknown and unknowable.

Thus chosen by God, Abraham complies, and takes leave of all he knows. The promise is that of being great, blessed, and having power over others. Later, the promise would come to include also the imprecise bequeathing of some land – the “Promised Land.” However, this land would never be just some worldly territory, a precious piece of real estate. It would be a divine space.

By 100 B.C.E., with exiles (real and/or imagined) in Egypt, the Sinai and Babylon, and after successive conquests of Babylonia by Assyrians, Persians, Greeks and Romans, Abraham’s descendents have lost all realistic expectation of an earthly empire, and change the nature of the “Promised Land” from an actual, earthly one to a transcendent, other-worldly, spiritual one.

In contrast to the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Tale of Abraham is one of non-acceptance of the human condition. God’s command to Abraham overrides in one stroke Gilgamesh’s hard-won acceptance of the natural limits of life.

Whereas in the Epic of Gilgamesh, hope resides in place (the here and now), and emanates from life itself, for the descendents of Abraham, hope would reside in a Promise to be fulfilled in the future, and in the immaterial mechanisms of deliverance and transcendence.

(Noble 2005, pp. 18-28, summarized in Hall 2008b, pp. 3-6).

Christianity: The Christians (as also would the Muslims) universalize the Promise by divorcing the covenant from kinship. Given the requisite faith, all people are rendered potentially chosen people.

For Christians, the “Promised Land” consists of, not only (as previously) the restored Garden of Eden and the original land of Israel, but now also the ethereal Kingdom of God – a heavenly New Jerusalem. Resurrection means the conquest of death, the triumph of man over the limits placed by nature on human existence. It is the triumph denied King Gilgamesh. Eternal life has been achieved, provided the “Promised Land” is a spiritual space, not an earthly place.

Henceforth, history, interpreted as linear and teleological, would be the measure of the inevitable advance toward the “Promised Land,” the account of the movement of human experience toward its destiny, a chronicle of the unfolding universal divine plan, a vehicle for deliverance to the appointed destination, a guarantor of redemption.

(Noble 2005, pp. 30-32, 49-51 and 69, summarized in Hall 2008b, pp. 7-8 and 14-15).

History with aN Old Testament Template

With a disembodied deity whose dictates are to be obeyed, and an ultimate destination in an ethereal “heaven,” Western culture predisposes its people to assume that other abstractions also have a deterministic power over their lives. Whether expressed in religious or secular terms, the theme of Western culture is that there is a self-regulating force outside human agency and outside human consciousness, which has redemptive power and determines human fate.

The Middle Ages:

Saint Augustine (354-430): Saint Augustine, theologian from Cappadocia (present day East central Turkey), considers that Adam, having been created in God’s image, was immortal – a divine characteristic forfeited with the Fall.

For Augustine, history is the tenure of humankind during its exile from perfection. It is homogeneous and unchanging, of little interest and without consequence, no more than a filler in the larger story of salvation. The only spiritually significant moment in a person’s life is death, the gateway to the transcendent. New Jerusalem is other-worldly only. In its blessed state of renewed perfection, a saved mankind will have no further need for the useful arts (the mechanical arts, the emerging crafts):

“All these favors taken together are but the fragmentary solace allowed us in a life condemned to misery.”

Joachim of Fiore (c.1132-1202): Joachim of Fiore, Cistercian abbot from Calabria, Italy, in Exposition on the apocalypse, gives history a pre-determined, dynamic, linear course, set by Providence and irreversible. History is a moving belt in motion, carrying mankind inexorably and automatically to its inevitable destination – the millennium reunification of man with God. History consists of three stages (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) which proceed in a fixed sequence toward the Millennium. Mankind is on the verge of the Millennium.

Joachim of Fiore’s apocalyptic conception of history is a potent variation on the theme of the “Promised Land,” and would have a major influence on Western thought.

The European Renaissance:

Francis Bacon (1561-1626): In 1620, Francis Bacon, English philosopher, essayist and statesman, publishes Novum Organum. Bacon believes that the advancement of human knowledge is the key to salvation and the promised restoration of perfection:

“The true end of knowledge . . . is a restitution and the re-investing (in great part) of man to the sovereignty and power . . . which he had in his first state of creation.”

(See the present document under “From Investments to global Control,” “1620, Francis Bacon”).

Giambattista Vico (Giovanni Vico, 1668-1744): Giambattista Vico, philosopher and historian, Professor of Rhetoric at the University of Naples, Italy, describes history as led by divine laws outside human agency. Dynamic, linear, irreversible, pre-determined and teleological, history is driven by providence, and leads us to renewed perfection. The pre-determined end is the Millennium – redemption, the return of the perfection of Adam.

In New science (1725), Vico writes:

“A true history is a history of the forms of order which, without human discernment or intent, and often against the designs of men, providence has given to this great city of the human race.”

The Enlightenment: During the Enlightenment, the view of history as moving toward a millennium, provides a template for even secular thinkers.

Francois Voltaire (1694-1778): Voltaire, French philosopher and author, sees progress in humankind, such as, for instance, in the gradual humanization of society through the arts, sciences, and commerce.

Denis Diderot (1713-1784): Diderot, French encyclopedist, philosopher of materialism, and critic of art and literature, is an avowed atheist. His Encyclopedia, or reasoned dictionary of the sciences, the arts and the trades (1765) is primarily a description of inventions, which, Diderot hopes, will document, and, thereby further the advance of social progress – the evolution of the human mind toward human perfection.

Adam Smith (1723-1790): In 1776, Scottish economist Adam Smith publishes An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Smith’s theory is based on the template of the “Promised Land.” Smith assumes that a beneficent divine order in nature exists behind the chaos of commerce. The “invisible hand” in the market is part of this divine order, transmuting individual self-interest into social good.

(See the present document under “From Investments to global Control,” “1776, Adam Smith.” Also under “Essential Features of Capitalism,” Number 6, “An egocentric View”).

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804): Immanuel Kant, German metaphysician, searches for “the secret plan” of history, the “determinate plan, . . . the universal purpose of nature.” Nature (“Providence”) is leading humans to a “perfect Civil Union.”

Antoine-Nicolas de Condorcet (1743-1794): Antoine-Nicolas de Condorcet, French mathematician, philosopher and political leader, sees the inevitable march of progress, in the form of reason and freedom, as leading to the ultimate perfection of mankind.

George Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831): George Hegel, German philosopher, sees history as “universal divine reason” (God) unfolding and realizing itself.

Auguste Comte (1798-1857): Auguste Comte, French engineer and philosopher, founder of positivism and “father of sociology,” views history as a succession of three stages (“epochs of the general mind”) leading inevitably to perfection. “Social physics” will reveal the tendency toward progress – the “natural progress of civilization.” Positivism (empirical science) will lead irresistibly to the regeneration of the world.

“[All of history reveals] the tendency toward regeneration, [an inescapable movement toward] the kingdom of the Great Being.”

Karl Marx (1818-1883): Karl Marx, German social philosopher, sees the “wheel of history” as turning irreversibly toward a materialist millennium. Successive stages of history correspond to particular modes of production – primitive communism, antiquity, the “Asiatic,” feudalism, capitalism and socialism. Socialism is Marx’s “Promised Land.”

Under capitalism, the concentration in the means of production is ultimately beneficent because it will lead inexorably to socialism. The means of production and distribution of products will lead to the victory of the proletariat, and this in turn, to communism, the ideal way to distribute products.

“What the bourgeoisie produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers . . . Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.”

Embracing the Concepts of Karl Marx: The two forces outside conscious human agency which Marx views as driving history, would be appropriated, abstracted and reified into present concepts with a similar connotation. “Production” would become “technology,” and “the exchange of products” would become “the economy” (“the market”).

(Noble 2005, pp. 49-69, 81 and 147, summarized in Hall 2008b, pp. 16-24 and 41. Noble 1997/1999, pp. 10, 24, 50-53, 57, 84-85 and 202-203, summarized in Hall 2004, p. 4. See the present document under “Capitalism.” Also under “From Investments to global Control,” “1867, Karl Marx.” And also under “Essential Features of Capitalism,” Number 1, “Profit;” Number 2, “Exploitation of the People and the Land;” Number 3, “Unlimited economic Growth;” and Number 4, “Economic Inequality).

Modernity – The United States: In the U.S., the Promise is taken concretely from the start. The template of the Old Testament on American history is the telos of a displaced people, estranged, but chosen by God to possess transformative powers of perfection, and deploy them upon both nature and mankind. The ideological and psychological association of the United States with the mythological chosen people of Israel is deep, and remains at the core of American self- identity:

Christopher Columbus (1451-1506): Christopher Columbus, master of the marine arts, names his voyages,

“The Enterprise of Jerusalem.”

President Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924): At the end of World War I, President Wilson declares:

“The stage is set, the destiny disclosed. It has come about by no plan of our conceiving, but by the hand of God, who led us into this way. We cannot turn back. We can only go forward, with lifted eyes and freshened spirit, to follow the vision. It was this we dreamed at our birth. America shall in truth show the way. The light streams upon the path ahead, and nowhere else.”

President Franklin Roosevelt (1882-1945): During World War II, President Roosevelt calls upon citizens to:

“cleanse the world of ancient evils, ancient ills. We are inspired by a faith which goes back through all the years to the first chapter of the Book of Genesis . . . We, on our side, are striving to be true to that divine heritage”

(See the present document under “From Investments to global Control,” “1932, President Franklin D. Roosevelt”).

President Dwight Eisenhower (1890-1969): President Eisenhower, upon signing the act of Congress which provides for the addition of the words, “one nation under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance, declares, in 1954:

“From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty.”

President George W. Bush: President George Bush, condemning the decision of the San Francisco Federal Appeals Court that “one nation under God” violates the principle of separation of church and state, declares, in 2002:

“We received our rights from God . . . [The decision] is out of step with American tradition and history.”

(Noble 2005, pp. 30-32, 34-39 and 73, summarized in Hall 2008b, pp. 10-11. See the present document under “My Conclusions,” “President Barack Obama’s inaugural Address”).

Present Expressions of the “Promised Land”: In modern Western civilization, the myth of the “Promised Land” expresses itself most influentially in secularized, abstract ideas of automatic redemption and deliverance. The most prominent examples are “history,” “technology,” and “the economy” (and its recent equivalent, “the market”). The corollaries of these, however, have the same connotations – “free trade,” “the invisible hand of the market,” “the laws of economics,” “progress,” “innovation,” “modernization,” “development,” “globalization, and “the march of civilization.”

These concepts – detached, de-contextualized, disembodied, reified – assume the nature of being “things” in and of themselves, of being autonomous, deterministic forces outside human agency. They are the modern expression of the Hebrew myth of divine order and redemption revealed to Abraham. They are surrogates for God, secondary keepers of the promise.

“History”: Time is assumed to be linear. God’s promise of restored perfection to Abraham, makes time, and its reified concept, “history,” the medium of divine deliverance. Time, in the guise of historical determinism, is the second guarantor of redemption.

A re-contextualized, de-reified concept of history, might lead us to compare the living experience of the poor, the women, the children, and the maimed, then and now, instead of focusing on the exploitative feats (including wars and empires which kill and maim) of powerful males.

The ingrained Abrahamic habit of obedience to divine direction, initially instilled with the call of God to the patriarchs, and subsequently inscribed into the very idea of history, would now be transferred to two new, disembodied concepts, also considered deterministic imperatives, and hence also deserving deference and obedience. The dictates of “technology” and “the economy” (“the market”) are to be heeded because, in the end, they will lead us to a millennium, albeit a materialistic millennium.

Now, not only history, but within history, “technology” and “the economy” (“the market”) are keepers of the promise – surrogates for God.

“Technology”: “Technology” is a metaphysical construct, a concept which, divorced from its moorings in the settled social life of a particular people, in particular places, appears to be autonomous, disembodied, automatic, deterministic and transcendent. “Technology” is universal, boundless, full of promise. It is promise itself, a self-propelled engine of salvation. It is redemption in the making. Technology is the third guarantor of redemption.

A re-contextualized, de-reified concept of “technology” might lead us to realize that the principal menacing trends in the world today are not resolvable by technology. The poor need land on which they can grow their own subsistence food, a source of potable water, latrines, unpolluted air to breathe, basic health care, basic education, and friendly neighbors with whom they can exchange seeds and have a social and recreational life. They need freedom and self-governance. All of these solutions are based on well-known and well-tested low-level technologies. None require “innovation.”

“The Economy” (“The Market): “The economy” (“the market”) is a concept which derives from the reification of the social activity of exchange – the means by which the fruits of production are distributed. It represents an abstraction of the complex web of commercial intercourse – an intercourse which is, of course, embedded in the fabric of social life.

When the core activities of exchange are stripped of their human sinew, people in Western culture, long predisposed to obey divine, disembodied directions, are ready to transfer their obedience onto the new, disembodied concept of “the economy” (“the market”). It now also becomes a determinant of the human fate. The promise is that, if heeded, its dictates will lead us to a (materialistic) millennium. “The economy” (“the market”) is the fourth guarantor of redemption.

A de-reification of the concept of “the free-market” might lead us to search for a system of material goods distribution which would engender the participation of all, not less than half the world’s population. As we see other ways of distributing goods, we might realize that capitalism is intolerant of all other systems, always needing to expand, always needing to win the competition, always needing people to buy commodities, even at the cost of life, both human or environmental.

(Noble 2005, pp. 69-86, summarized in Hall 2008b, pp. 24- 26, 29 and 32. Parenti 2008 and Parenti 2007, pp. 14 and 17-31, both summarized in Hall 2008b, p. 47. Noble 1997/1999, pp. 11, 13, 21-22, 39, 66-67, 83, 202-205, summarized in Hall 2004, pp. 1-12).

from investments to global control

Capitalism began as a means for the wealthy, merchant class, to make a money-profit from the new inventions which were emerging in rapid succession. Capitalism now controls the world’s economy.

1620 Francis Bacon (1561-1626): In 1620, Francis Bacon, English philosopher, essayist and statesman, publishes Novum Organum.

Bacon believes that the advancement of human knowledge is the key to salvation and the promised restoration of perfection:

“The entrance into the kingdom of man, founded on the sciences, [is] not much other than the entrance into the kingdom of heaven . . . The true end of knowledge . . . is a restitution and reinvesting (in great part) of man to the sovereignty and power . . . which he had in his first state of creation.”

(See the present document under “History with an Old Testament Template,” “The European Renaissance,” “Francis Bacon”).

1660 The Royal Society of London: The Royal Society of London is founded.

Taking Francis Bacon as its patron saint, the Society compares him to Moses who directs his devoted disciples to the “Promised Land.” The Society focuses primarily on the advancement of the useful arts as aids to the emergent capitalist enterprise, in which many of the participants have an interest.

1675 Land Enclosures: Unchecked land enclosures, and their associated agricultural “improvements” reach their peak, enabling the emergence of the two central fictitious commodities of the new capitalist regime – land and labor. Land is fenced in for the most profitable use or sale. Labor is expelled from its traditional habitation and compelled either to work for a wage or join the swelling ranks of “the poor.” As the products from farm and factory increase, so too do capitalist clamors for new markets and free trade.

1758 Francois Quesnay (1694-1774): In 1758, Francois Quesnay, French economist, founder of the physiocratic school of economics, publishes Tableau economique (Economic Table), a heuristic visual representation of the economic activity of France as a whole, aimed at helping the monarchy formulate policy. Quesnay emphasizes lowering the barriers to agricultural exports, and the physiocrats coin the phrase “laissez-faire.”

1776 Adam Smith (1723-1790): In 1776, Scottish economist Adam Smith publishes An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations.

Smith’s theory is based on the template of the “Promised Land.” He assumes that a beneficent divine order in nature exists behind the chaos of commerce, and he locates it alternatively in man’s instinct to barter in his own self-interest; an “invisible hand” in the market which transmutes that self-interest into the social good; the “natural laws” of the market which correlate supply and demand; and providence which assures that free trade will promote universal peace and brotherhood.

Although Smith is the founder of the globalized “free market” paradigm, his concept of the “free market” diverges as much from the global system as the traditional market diverges from the global system. In An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations, Smith indeed explains that the pursuit of one’s private interests in the market promotes the public good. However, Smith also supposes a set of powerfully qualifying conditions regarding social and productive accountability – conditions, which are, in fact, far more central to his theory than the paragraph which explains the coincidence.

Smith’s conditions include: no private monopoly or oligopoly of production or distribution, no migration of domestic capital to foreign nations, commodities manufactured must “last for some time,” no stock, bond and currency speculations, capital must be re-invested in productive jobs, taxation must fall on citizens in proportion to their respective abilities to pay, and traders, merchants and manufacturers “ought [not] to be, the rulers of mankind.”

None of these conditions operate in the “free market” of today.

(Noble 2005, pp. 89-94, summarized in Hall 2008b, p. 34. McMurtry 1999, pp. 41-45. 82 and 265, summarized in Hall 2008c, pp. 47-48. See the present document under “History with an Old Testament Template,” “The Enlightenment,” “Adam Smith.” Also under “Essential Features of Capitalism,” Number 6, “An egocentric View”).

1865 William Stanley Jevons (1835-1882): In 1865, William Stanley Jevons, English economist and logician, publishes The coal question – an inquiry concerning the progress of the nation, and the probable exhaustion of our coal mines. Jevons shows that efficiency measures increase rather than decrease the use of resources (pp. 162-163 and 194).

Jevons is a pioneer in the development of marginal utility analysis, which makes possible the study of economic behavior in terms of mathematically conceived preference schedules. Marginalist theory assumes that consumers seek to maximize utility, just as firms seek to maximize profits. Values and prices are based on marginal utility. The mathematical method of analysis which this assumption makes possible, revolutionizes economic theory.

Marginal analysis enables economists to visualize people as a-political atoms of automatically self-maximizing preferences. Life complexities and social relations are abstracted away as non-existent.

This mechanistic paradigm suits the market paradigm – which sees human and environmental life forms as inputs for global corporations in the business of maximizing money-profits for stockholders.

(Ackerman 1997, p. 82, summarized in Hall 2008c, p. 32. See the present document under “Capitalism cannot save what it destroys,” Number 7, “Not ‘Efficiency only’”).

1867 Karl Marx (1818-1883): In 1867, Karl Marx, German social philosopher, economic theoretician, and the founder of economic history and sociology, publishes the first volume of Das kapital.

Marx systematically criticizes the material power structure of all hitherto existing civil society, pointing out that in a society divided into social classes, a self-serving minority owns most of the society’s means of producing the necessities of life, and, therefore, the majority is constrained to subordinate its life interest to this minority.

Marx shows that the essential driving force of capitalism is the pursuit of growth – which is unsustainable. Yet Marx believes in the inevitability, and ultimate beneficence of the concentration in the means of production, seeing it as inexorably laying the foundation for the complete socialization of production.

(P. x. McMurtry 1999, pp. 9-10, summarized in Hall 2008c, p. 23. Noble 2005, pp. 122, summarized in Hall 2008b, pp. 22 and 35. Wikipedia “Karl Marx” 2009, pp. 1 and 18. Marx’s Das kapital, Volume I, was published in 1867. Volumes II and III were published posthumously by George Engels, in 1885 and 1894, respectively).

(See the present document under “Capitalism.” Also under “History with an Old Testament Template,” “The Enlightenment,” “Karl Marx.” And also under “Essential Features of Capitalism,” Number 1, “Profit;” Number 2, “Exploitation of the People and the Land;” Number 3, “Unlimited economic Growth;” and Number 4, “Economic Inequality”).

1886 The Santa Clara Decision: In its landmark Santa Clara decision, the United States Supreme Court, without acknowledging the actual status of the corporation as a collective entity, confers on it the constitutional status of a person. Corporations now have the same rights as individuals.

Corporate directors and shareholders are henceforth immune from liability beyond their limited stake in the enterprise. By law, they are required to remain indifferent to any end but shareholder return on investment, and are required to make a profit. The stark self-interest and pure utility-maximizing behavior of corporations makes them better representatives of the “economic man” described in the classical “free market” theory, than actual humans.

Western culture has achieved its aim of eternal life. Legally, it has created a person who does not die. Shareholders come an go, but the bureaucracy of the corporation is potentially immortal. The rest of us, who are not fictitious, are in powerless, atomistic competition with these corporate gods among us.

(Noble 2005, pp. 121 and 130, summarized in Hall 2008b, pp. 36 and 48).

1932 President Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882-1945): President Roosevelt initiates the New Deal, a program of domestic reforms which would continue through the 1930’s. It provides not only recovery and relief from the Great Depression, but also social and economic legislation which benefits working people. The Social Security System, part of the program, for example, is established in 1935. The New Deal interferes with the maximization of profits by corporations.

(See the present document under “History with an Old Testament Template,” “Modernity – The United States,” “President Franklin D. Roosevelt”).

1950 “The Economy” (“the Market”): By 1950, the terms “the economy” and “the market,” in their abstract sense, are in widespread use.

The “corpus” of the corporate-persons becomes increasingly amorphous, as the courts extend the definition of property beyond the material to the intangible, such as securities and even goodwill – anything with potential exchange value.

1971 Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen (1906-1994): In 1971, Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, Romanian mathematician, statistician and economist, working at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, publishes The entropy law and the economic process. To Marx’s focus on the value of labor, Georgescu-Roegen adds the value of resources (the input of “Nature”).

Georgescu-Roegen challenges the hitherto purely mechanistic concept of economics, derived from Newtonian physics, and introduces the thermodynamic concept of entropy. He demonstrates that all economic activity inevitably accelerates the depletion of resources, the production of waste, and the degradation of ecosystems.

Georgescu-Roegen’s work is ignored by all but a very few economists (one of whom is Herman Daly).

(Pp. x, 159-160 and 206. See the present document under “Essential Features of Capitalism,” Number 3, “Unlimited economic Growth;” Number 5, “A short-term View;” and Number 7, “Transforming Life into a Commodity”).

1975 Suppressing Democracy: Around 1975, the corporations launch an ideological offensive to buttress the sagging popular support for the “free market.” They take the idea of progress (an amalgam of “the market” and “technology”), and re-frame it as “innovation.” They wage a fierce campaign against any organized opposition to corporate prerogatives, attacking particularly trade unions, environmental groups, and consumer advocacy organizations, all of which they deride as demagogic, dogmatic, ignorant, narrowly self-interested, socially irresponsible, and economically unsophisticated.

1977 Herman Daly (1938-): In 1977, Herman Daly, American ecological economist at the University of Maryland, College Park, MD, formerly with the World Bank, publishes Steady state economics.

Daly describes mainstream economic theory as not differentiating between “absolute wants” (such as food, water, shelter, and clothing sufficient to provide a decent life), and “relative wants” (which grow out of a desire to acquire more and better goods and services, relative to the norm of the society). Absolute wants can be quantified and limited, but relative wants are infinite, because the more successfully they are fulfilled, the more additional desires they create.

Economics has its roots in an era when most wants were absolute (based on fundamental needs), yet scarcity was relative – when one natural resource fell into short supply, a substitute was soon found. In the late 20^th century, however, humanity entered an era of absolute scarcity, facing finite supplies of irreplaceable resources, and the destruction of entire ecosystems. A few countries satisfy relative wants on a grand scale, while neglecting absolute wants throughout the world.

The combination of relative wants and absolute scarcity is not only leading to suicidal growth, but is also deepening the misery of the planet’s poor. An economy designed to satisfy everyone’s relative wants, requires both infinite growth (because such wants are unlimited), and perpetual inequality (because in a more equitable world, the consumption of one person could not be higher than that of others – it would not be relatively “better”).

(P. 101. See the present document under “Capitalism cannot save what it destroys,” Number 7, “Not ‘Efficiency only.’” And also under “Elements of a definitive Solution,” Number 6, “Building a new Community,” item c, “Large Institutions).

1978 The Bellotti Decision: In its landmark Bellotti decision, the U.S. Supreme Court grants corporate-persons the constitutional rights and protections of the First Amendment, including freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

During the 1970’s, the Court extends to corporate-persons the constitutional protections of the Fifth Amendment (an accused person may not be compelled to testify against himself; the government may not take private property without “just compensation”), the Sixth Amendment (guarantee of a speedy public trial for criminal offenses), and the Seventh Amendment (assurance of trial by jury in civil cases).

1981 President Ronald Reagan (1911-2004, president 1981-1989): President Reagan renounces the Keynesian policy of government-generated demand, in favor of “supply-side” free-market economics, centered on incentives to private investors. He institutes a liberalization of the market, fiscal austerity, a dramatic reduction in government taxes and spending, the privatization of public services, and a reliance on “trickle-down” wealth distribution. He dismantles social programs, mounts a frontal assault on organized labor, and eviscerates the government’s regulatory regime.

Internationally, through the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, both controlled by the U.S., Reagan imposes austere structural adjustment programs on foreign countries, promising long-term redemption through short-term suffering.

1989 President George H. W. Bush (1924-, president 1989-1993): President Bush heralds a “New World Order,” dominated by multinational corporations, “the market,” and U.S. armaments.

1990’s “Globalization”: In the 1990’s, the term “globalization,” in the sense of free trade for the world, takes hold. It is but another invention of the ideological offensive of the corporate-persons, and represents the latest incarnation of the myth of the “Promised Land.”

“Globalization,” – an abstract word – finds its embodiment in multinational corporations and in the international institutions which they control [such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and (as of 1995) the World Trade Organization (WTO)].

(Bellotti, Reagan, Bush and “Globalization”: Noble 2005, summarized in Hall 2008b, pp. 39 and 40).

1995 David Korten (1937-): David Korten, former economist with the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), publishes When corporations rule the world (1995), The post-corporate world – life after capitalism (2000), The great turning – from empire to Earth Community (2006), and Agenda for a new economy – from phantom wealth to real wealth (2009).

Korten expresses the view of many that the present environmental destruction is due only to the excesses of some large corporations. The capitalistic system itself is not at fault. The solution is to curb excesses, and return to a simpler economic life, like that described by Adam Smith:

“If you try to operate a market without rules, you get [the present] consolidation of power, a disconnect of financial power from the real economy of real people and real goods and services, and you develop a totally extractive economy. . . ”

“The real alternative is a real market economy that looks a whole lot more like what Adam Smith had in mind – which looks more like a farmers’ market . . . [We need to rebuild a new economy based on] local businesses and people who are rooted in their community and working within a framework of community values, and a set of public rules that enforce basic conditions of market efficiency.”

(Pp. 158 and 205-206. Korten 2009. See the present document under “From Investments to global Control,” “2002, Joel Kovel”).

1999 John McMurtry (1939-): Moral philosopher and ethicist at the University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada, John McMurtry focuses on economic values and their consequences for both human and environmental life.

In The cancer stage of capitalism (1999), McMurtry points out that if only money-priced goods are recognized as having any value, the implications for the un-priced goods, such as biodiversity and non-commercial species, are profound. Indeed it follows from such a measurement of value that selection for money value replaces natural selection in determining what lives and what dies, and how what lives, lives. Where natural selection has evolved inter-connections of function and recycling of wastes to reproduce life, the global market system is re-engineering these to reproduce and grow money.

McMurtry notes that environmental scientists and ecologists exclude the market system as a possible determinant of harmful effects on life, not registering, thereby, the underlying structure which causes the rapidly decreasing reproduction and distribution of the world’s species, and missing the causal relationship between the harm done to life and the selectors of the global economic system.

Neither do governments factor into their calculus the countless life forms, habitats and ecosystems which are being extinguished and poisoned, as the earth is stripped and polluted by ever more unfettered global market operations.

And neither does the scientific literature relate the cumulative environmental collapse back to the preference structure of capitalism which drives extractions, effluents and wastes in the environment.

(McMurtry 1999, pp. 28-29, summarized in Hall 2008c, p. 43).

In Value wars – the global market versus the life economy (2002), McMurtry argues that the market-value frame of reference assumes that an economy serves something other than the lives of its members. Money, its investment and its products are considered ends in themselves. In such a value frame, junk-foods, images of repetitive violence, luxury cars, military weapons, and the disposal of waste, all increase the gross national product (GNP) – which is good because growth of the GNP is the objective.

The life-value frame of reference, in contrast, assumes that an economy serves the lives of its members. It considers money, its investment, and its products as instrumental to human beings and social policies. It seeks those alternatives which are most likely to satisfy vital life needs, and thereby enable a more comprehensive expression and enjoyment of life, both for the individual and for the collective. A principal aim of such an economy would be to minimize waste.

(McMurtry 2002, pp. 123-124 and 251, summarized in Hall 2008a, p. 2. Wikipedia “John McMurtry” 2009, p. 1).

1999 Paul Hawken (1946-), Amory Lovins, and Hunter Lovins: Paul Hawken is an entrepreneur, journalist, best-selling author, and consultant with governments and corporations. In 1999, Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins and Hunter Lovins publish Natural capitalism – creating the next industrial revolution.

Hawken, Lovins and Lovins express the view of many “green capitalists” that humanity can achieve both a healthy environment and freedom from want, by means of increases in efficiency only. Earth-friendly materials, processes, and energy sources, will allow businesses to make fewer demands on the material world while also generating the needed monetary wealth. The capitalistic system itself is not to blame for the environmental collapse.

(P. 162. See the present document under “Capitalism cannot save what it destroys,” Number 2, “No ‘triple Bottom Line’”; and Number 7, “Not ‘Efficiency only’”).

2002 Joel Kovel (1936): In 2002, Joel Kovel, social scientist, psychiatrist, eco-socialist, and year 2000 Presidential candidate for the Green Party of the United States, publishes The enemy of nature – the end of capitalism or the end of the world?.

Kovel argues that David Korten does not explain how smaller scale, more humane capitalism can be achieved without addressing the issues of class exploitation and the “Money-Commodity-More Money” growth cycle, as described by Karl Marx.

Kovel sees Korten’s hope that “global civilizing society” can restrain and effectively domesticate the capitalist state, as having no foundation.

Kovel and other “ecosocialists” consider the current environmental plight of the planet as not the result of evil, scheming tycoons bent on personal enrichment, but rather as the logical result of a competitive economic system which rewards large businesses by giving them greater opportunities to make profits and grow even larger.

Just as the current plight of the planet cannot be blamed on “bad” corporate executives, so the rescue of the planet will not come from “good” or “green” executives. The background for individual actions is the capitalist system which blindly, systematically and inevitably leads to environmental degradation. Capitalism destroys the environment. It is an economic system which can neither stop this destruction, nor turn it around.

In 2001, Kovel co-authors, with Michael Lowy, “An ecosocialist Manifesto.”

(Wikipedia “Eco-socialism” 2008, pp. 4 and 20. See the present document under “Capitalism cannot save what it destroys,” Number 1, “Not ‘a few bad Apples.’” Also under “An ecosocialist Manifesto.” And also under “From Investments to global Control,” “1995, David Korten”).

2005 Corporate Rule: In 2005, David Noble, historian in the Department of social and political Thought, York University, Toronto, Canada, publishes Beyond the promised land – the movement and the myth.

Noble writes:

“Astride the globe, above the cares of place and moral existence, the corporate-person surveys the planet and sees only itself. Under its gaze, the world appears in its own desiccated image. Everything – food, water, health, education, even life itself, is reduced to commodities devoid of value except for that of the market. All rival collectivities – families, unions, communities, nations – are dissolved into the atomistic impotence of competing individuals. Behind it all, with its hand on the trigger, stands “globalization armed,” ready at a moment’s notice to launch pre-emptive war against any and all who would resist its definition of redemption.”

(Noble 2005, pp. 141-142, summarized in Hall 2008b, p. 40. Emphasis mine).

Determinism as a self-fulfilling Prophecy: Determinism, whether in regards to “technology” or “the economy” (“the market”), is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Belief in the power of these concepts to determine human fate, fosters a redemptive faith in, and thus a fatalistic surrender to their forces. People allow “technology,” or “the economy” (“the market”) to shape their lives, ipso facto rendering valid the deterministic nature of these concepts.

(Noble 2005, pp. 77-78, 86-95, 116-117, 120-123 and 126-142, summarized in Hall 2008b, pp. 32-40. Wikipedia “David F. Noble” 2008, p. 1).

Essential features of Capitalism

The essential features of capitalism include:

1. A need for profit.

2. The exploitation of both people and land.

3. The need for unlimited economic growth.

4. The concentration of wealth, leading to economic inequality.

5. A focus on the short term.

6. An egocentric view.

7. A preference for commodities over more unmanageable and less predictable life.

8. A preference for controlling, manipulating Nature over deferring to it.

9. Disconnecting money from production.

10. Systematically selecting for weapons manufacture and use.

Operating synergistically, these forces now threaten both human and non-human life on the planet.

1. Profit: Karl Marx pointed out that were employers not to extract more value out of their workers than workers require to maintain themselves and their families, the capitalist system would crumble. Even the most well-intentioned businesses have one mandatory obligation – that of turning a profit for owners and shareholders (pp. 121 and 156).

Exchange Value vs. Use Value: Capitalism turns every thing, tangible or not, into a commodity, by separating its “exchange value” from its inherent “use value.” The exchange value of a commodity – its worth in terms of money or other commodities – emerges in the marketplace, and is easily handled by capitalist economies. Use value, on the other hand, cannot be determined either easily or systematically. The inherent value of a medicine, tofu, or a species, cannot be quantified. Inherent value, therefore, is simply omitted from the calculations of capitalists. Every thing is considered a commodity – something which can be exchanged at a profit.

Natural Resources: Marx saw accurately that capitalist economies assign no value to, and have no place in their equations for resources in their native state, such as undisturbed soil or coal lying under the ground. The efforts of the farmer, the miner, or other working humans is what gives economic value to these “free gifts of Nature.”

(For an opinion on the consequences of using these “free gifts of Nature,” see the present document under “Essential Features of Capitalism,” Number 3, “Unlimited economic Growth,” “The faster the Planet’s Economy grows, the sooner the End will come.” See the present document under “Capitalism.” Also under “History with an Old Testament Template,” “The Enlightenment, “Karl Marx.“ Also under “From Investments to global Control,” “1867, Karl Marx.” And also under “Essential Features of Capitalism,” Number 2, “Exploitation of the People and the Land;” Number 3, “Unlimited economic Growth;” and Number 4, “Economic Inequality).

The Accumulation of Capital: If C denotes a commodity, and M, money, then the exchange of commodities (“selling in order to buy,” the way people obtain things they need), can be symbolized as:

C-M-C

The function of a capitalist, however, is to buy in order to sell at a profit. This can be symbolized as:

M-C-M₁

where M₁is larger than M. The difference (M₁- M) is the additional value generated by labor, and legally appropriated by the employer. This is how capital accumulates.

The process continues indefinitely. As Marx expressed it, “Money ends the movement only to begin it again:”

M-C-M₁-C-M₂-C-M₃

Marx explained:

“The expansion of value, which is the objective basis, or mainspring of the circulation M-C-M₁, becomes [the capitalist’s] subjective aim, and it is only in so far as the appropriation of ever more wealth in the abstract becomes the sole motive of his operations, that he functions as a capitalist” (Marx, quoted pp. 157-158).

From the point of view of the capitalist, the cycle must run as hard and as fast as possible, without end-point. Capital must accumulate perpetually (pp. 157-158).

Life vs. Money Acquisition: Adam Smith conceptualized the market as a means to achieve the “wealth of nations.” To him, the market rule of monetary self-interest was instrumental to the production of more and cheaper commodities for social well-being – profits working for life. Today’s corporate system has reversed Smith’s instrumentalist ethic. The global market paradigm recognizes life only insofar as it has instrumental value to increase profits – life working for profits.

Today, as public sector goods are “privatized,” and social programs eliminated, and as corporations are increasingly “free” and people increasingly un-free and insecure, the conflict, perhaps to the death, reveals itself – life vs. money acquisition.

(McMurtry 1999, pp. viii-x, 29, 38-40, 55-56, 92, 133, 140, 143 and 221-222, summarized in Hall 2008c, pp. 64 and 73).

2. Exploitation of the People and the Land: Class exploitation and ecological devastation both originate from the same source. Capitalism’s necessary exploitation of both people and land, was first pointed out by Karl Marx:

“All progress in capitalistic agriculture is a progress in the art, not only of robbing the laborer, but of robbing the soil.”

“All progress in increasing the fertility of the soil for a given time, is a progress toward ruining the lasting sources of that fertility. The more a country starts its development on the foundation of modern industry, like the United States, for example, the more rapid is this process of destruction.”

“Capitalist production, therefore, develops [both] technology and the combining together of various processes into a social whole, only by sapping the original sources of all wealth – the soil and the laborer” (pp. 76, 153 and 172. Marx, quoted pp. 76 and 191).

Marx stressed that the crucial exploitation occurs not in the realm of the highly visible market (for example, in modern times, the supermarket), but in the work place, out of sight of all but a few. The work place is where labor power and the Earth’s resources join forces to produce the extra value which supports the capitalist enterprise. In the work place, it is the owner, not the worker, who makes the decisions (p. 76).

The promise to humanity of “freedom from want and a healthy environment,” on the part of “green capitalists,” lacks historical foundation. Marx’s “general law of capitalist accumulation,” is still valid:

“[There is always] an accumulation of misery corresponding with an accumulation of capital” (Marx, quoted p. 174).

In the United States, from 1973 to 2004, worker productivity (output per hour) increased by 76 percent. Real family income, however, rose by only 22 percent (Mishel, Bernstein, and Allegretto 2006, cited pp. 173 and 208).

In a capitalist economy, eco-friendly gestures are bound to reflect the interests of highly-placed decision-makers – precisely those who are benefiting the most from the capitalist system (p. 174).

(See the present document under “Capitalism.” Also under “History with an Old Testament Template,” “The Enlightenment, “Karl Marx.“ Also under “From Investments to global Control,” “1867, Karl Marx.” Also under “Essential Features of Capitalism,” Number 1, “Profit;” Number 3, “Unlimited economic Growth;” and Number 4, “Economic Inequality. And also under “Ecological Unsustainability,” Number 7, “Not ‘Efficiency only’”).

3. Unlimited economic Growth: Marx’s hard-driving and indispensable money cycle of capitalism, M-C-M₁-C-M₂-C-M₃, requires unlimited economic growth (See the present document under “Essential Features of Capitalism,” Number 1, “Profit”).

Capitalism cannot reduce or reverse its Growth: The reductions in ecological footprint and carbon emissions which are presently needed, are far greater than can be achieved through eco-conscious purchasing or improved production practices by enlightened capitalists. Keeping the planet livable will entail not just slower growth but an actual contraction of human economic activity (pp. 10 and 164).

Current efforts by capitalist economies are falling far short of the biologically necessary goals. Proposed environmental policies which would do significant harm to profits and economic growth are not even considered (p. 168).

Worldwide, at present, no plan for ecological sustainability considers the possibility, much less the necessity of shifting any national economy into a contraction mode. Even the most environmentally conscious prescriptions focus only on “smarter” or slightly slower growth. Decision-makers of the global economy do not discuss a slowing down of human economic activity – understanding only too well that their position of privilege depends on capitalism, which, in turn, depends on ever-expanding consumption (p. 12).

Yet all economic growth is ecologically destructive. The current economic system, driven by growth, cannot be part of the new society which urgently needs to be built. An alternative to capitalism may not save the Earth, but capitalism assuredly will not (pp. viii, xi and xii).

(See the present document under “Capitalism.” Also under “History with an Old Testament Template,” “The Enlightenment, “Karl Marx.“ Also under “From Investments to global Control,” “1867, Karl Marx.” And also under “Essential Features of Capitalism,” Number 1, “Profit;” Number 2, “Exploitation of the People and the Land;” and Number 4, “Economic Inequality).

The faster the planet’s economy grows, the sooner the end will come: Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, in The entropy law and the economic process (1971), introduces the thermodynamic concept of entropy.

The entropy law (the second law of thermodynamics) states that usable “free energy” tends to disperse or become lost in the form of “bound energy.” The universe as a whole is winding down, inevitably, toward an eventual high-entropy “heat death.” The sum total of all human economic activities accelerate thermodynamic decay.

Georgescu-Roegen explains:

“The conclusion is straightforward. If we stampede over details, we can say that every baby born now means one human life less in the future. But also every Cadillac produced at any time, means fewer lives in the future.”

“Up to this day, the price of technological progress has meant a shift from the more abundant sources of low entropy – the solar radiation – to the less abundant one – the earth’s mineral resources . . .”

“Population pressure and technological progress bring ceteris paribus the career of the human species nearer to its end, only because both factors cause a speedier decumulation of is dowry.”

“For we must not doubt that man’s [sic] nature being what it is, the destiny of the human species is to choose a truly great but brief, not a long and dull, career.”

(Georgescu-Roegen 1971, quoted pp. 159 and 206. Wikipedia “Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen” 2008, p. 1. See the present document under “From Investments to global Control,” “1971, Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen.” Also under “Essential Features of Capitalism,” Number 5, “A short-term View”; and Number 7, “Transforming Life into Commodities”).

Natural Resources: Including the “free gifts of Nature” into his analysis, Georgescu-Roegen shows that whenever natural resources enter the economic process, they are irreversibly decayed.

Our Stone Age Future: Georgescu-Roegen’s concept of thermodynamic decay, taken together with Marx’s cycle, M-C-M₁, repeated ad infinitum, implies that our future holds another Stone Age, and the faster our economic growth, the steeper the decline. The final Stone Age is sure to be more resource-poor, and probably more toxic, than the last, and there will be no coming back (pp. 159-160).

4. Economic Inequality: Karl Marx pointed to the inevitability of concentration of wealth in capitalism:

“The cheapness of commodities depends . . . on the productivity of labor, and this [productivity of labor] on the scale of production. Therefore, the larger capitals beat the smaller . . . The smaller capitals, therefore, crowd into spheres of production which modern industry has only sporadically and incompletely [invaded]. Here, competition rages in direct proportion to the number, and in inverse proportion to the magnitudes of the antagonistic capitals.”

“It always ends in the ruin of many small capitalists whose capitals partly pass into the hands of their conquerors, and partly vanish” (Marx, quoted pp. 158 and 205).

At present, in all countries, it is the wealthy class which stands to gain most from a capitalist solution to global warming. The world’s disadvantaged, who will be most affected, do not control policy.

(See the present document under “Capitalism.” Also under “History with an Old Testament Template,” “The Enlightenment, “Karl Marx.“ Also under “From Investments to global Control,” “1867, Karl Marx.” And also under “Essential Features of Capitalism,” Number 1, “Profit;” Number 2, “Exploitation of the People and the Land;” and Number 3, “Unlimited economic Growth”).

5. A short-term View: In his The entropy law and the economic process (1971), Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, describes the short-term view and the denial of long-term consequences which are encouraged by capitalism:

“The faster the economic process goes, the faster the noxious waste accumulates.”

“For the earth as a whole, there is no disposal process of waste. Baneful waste is there to stay unless we use some free energy to dispose of it in some way or another . . . There is a vicious circle in using detergents for economy of resources and labor, and afterwards having to use costly procedures to restore to normal life in lakes and river banks.”

(Georgecu-Roegen 1971, quoted p. 34. See the present document under “From Investments to global Control,” “1971, Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen.” Also under “Essential Features of Capitalism,” Number 3, “Unlimited economic Growth;” and Number 7, “Transforming Life into Commodities” ).

6. An egocentric View: In An inquiry into the nature and understanding of the wealth of nations (1776), Adam Smith conceptualizes the pursuit of one’s private interests in the market as promoting the public good:

“Every individual is continually exerting himself to find out the most advantageous employment for whatever capital he can command. It is his own advantage, indeed, and not that of society, which he has in view. But the study of his own advantage naturally, or rather necessarily, leads him to prefer that employment which is most advantageous to society . . . By directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and in this, as in many other cases, he is led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.”

To this principle of coincidence between investor and market gain, however, Smith supposed a set of powerfully qualifying conditions regarding social and productive accountability.

In today’s global market, Smith’s classical principles for a free market, have been turned into their opposite. The model which the global corporate system appropriates for its self-description, the “free-market,” is what, in fact, in every aspect, it opposes. Only self-maximizing money gain, decoupled from every condition remains. The point of view of investors is strictly selfish (egocentric).

(McMurtry 1999, pp. 41-45, 82 and 265, summarized in Hall 2008c, pp. 47-48. See the present document under “History with an Old Testament Template,” “The Enlightenment,” “Adam Smith.” For Adam Smith’s stipulated conditions, see the present document under “From Investments to global Control,” “1776, Adam Smith”).

7. Transforming Life into a Commodity: Industrial and commercial output can be increased by increasing capacity, increasing inputs, increasing the number of workers, increasing the work load of workers, and increasing the number of hours worked by workers.

In contrast, farming is inevitably bound by the calendar, by month-to-month variation in the capacity of the soil and sunlight to produce new plant tissue. Farming depends fundamentally on the productivity and habits of non-human biological organisms, over which humans can exert only minimal control. Land, machinery, and workers are all forced into idleness for extended periods of time, punctuated by short periods of frenzied activity. It is not the ideal pattern for efficient wealth generation. In the past century, efforts have been relentless to mold agriculture into the factory model, and, where this is not possible, to graft more easily regimented industries onto an agricultural rootstock (such as genetic engineering or fish farming). The aim has been to force biological organisms to fit the factory model, where control of the commodity is total (p. 65).

In The entropy law and the economic process (1971), Nicholas Georgecu-Roegen describes:

“So vital is the dependence of terrestrial life on the energy received from the sun, that the cyclic rhythm in which this energy reaches each region of the earth has gradually built itself, through natural selection, into the reproductive pattern of almost every species, vegetal or animal . . . Yet, the general tenor among economists, has been to deny any substantial difference between the structures of agricultural and industrial productive activities.”

(Georgescu-Roegen 1971, quoted pp. 65 and 188. See the present document under “From Investments to global Control,” “1971, Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen.” Also under “Essential Features of Capitalism,” Number 3, “Unlimited economic Growth,” and Number 5, “A short-term View”).

8. Controlling, manipulating Nature: The metaphysical principle of capitalism, is that money capital has the right to appropriate, exchange, extract, exploit and re-structure all life, in societies or the natural environment, in order to maximize returns for stockholders. Life, considered by large businesses (corporations) as an instrument, is enlisted to help achieve the goal of money accumulation. The market paradigm is not able to recognize any common interest of life.

In contrast, the metaphysical principle of life, human and environmental, is that it is perpetually sustained and its growth assured by its own spontaneous cycles. No productive plan is required to make this happen by artifice. This is “the great harmony” which all cultures throughout history (until the global market system) have recognized.

As the ability of technology to disaggregate and destroy natural life systems has increased, this difference in means of achieving desired results, has become decisive in the organization of life on the planet. Humanity, programmed according to the dictates of money accumulation, is, for the first time in the history of any species or culture, threatening the very foundations of life on the planet.

Capitalism needs to do something or make something, so that there can be a money exchange, and hence the potential for a profit. Without a service rendered or a commodity sold, there is no opportunity for profit-making. The through-put is what generates the wealth. Yet, the only way in which “sustainability” of the environment can be achieved, is by humans not systematically depleting, polluting, or destroying the environment. If not destroyed, the environment will take care of itself.

But capitalism cannot leave Nature alone. It must manipulate it in order to meet the requirement for profit. Focused solely on money, humanity continues to dismantle and poison the environment. The market paradigm cannot see that the one-way program of turning nature into parts for commodities, and the rest into a bottomless sink for industrial effluents, is ecologically disastrous. Capitalism cannot recognize the obvious reality that environmental stability and biodiversity are needed for all life, including human life.

(P. 88. McMurtry 1999, pp. 81-82, 130, 143, and 160-161, summarized in Hall 2008c, p. 84).

9. Disconnecting Money from Production: In today’s neo-classical stage of the “free market,” most of the trading across national boundaries is currency speculation – one national currency being exchanged for another for the purpose of profit-making.

a. Volume: The volume of the currency speculation market dwarfs, and, therefore, renders meaningless, the value of money as representing real production in goods and services. Speculative money is de-linked from its foundation in production.

Currency speculators now form a constituency which favors instability in the world economic system:

* In 1975, global foreign exchange transactions totaled approximately 4 trillion US dollars. Of these transactions, 20 percent were speculative – that is, their sole purpose was an expected profit from buying and selling currencies, based on their changing values. The other 80 percent of the transactions were carried out in order to conduct business in the real economy (importing oil, exporting cars, etc . . .).

* In 2008, global foreign exchange transactions totaled approximately 2,059 trillion dollars – an increase of 51,375 percent in 33 years. This volume of global foreign exchange transactions was equivalent to an every 2.5 days turnover of the entire annual gross domestic product of the United States (14.3 trillion dollars).

b. Disempowering Governments: Currency speculation is disempowering national governments. Dissatisfied with a government’s policies, currency traders “punish” it by selling off its currency. A group of traders acting together causes the value of the national currency to plummet, and precipitates a “currency crisis.” Governments fear such sudden large sell-offs, experiencing them as “attacks” on the value of their currencies.

c. Disempowering Humanity: Transnational trade and investment agreements, unaccountable to any public authority, and superseding the authority of national governments, have enabled transnational corporations and finance capital, effectively to dis-empower the majority of the world’s people. At the speed of an electronic signal, and without commitment to the countries in which they operate, corporations and finance capital move to countries where the labor force is cheaper or financial speculation more lucrative – leaving workers without employment and countries without funds. Billed under the salable slogan of “free trade,” the system in effect ushers the age of disposable humanity.

(McMurtry 1999, pp. 62, 108, 116, 126, 240, 272 and 289, summarized in Hall 2008c, pp. 59-61).

10. Systematic Selection for Weapons Manufacture and Use: Weapons are commodities which are researched, designed and produced to destroy human life and its infrastructure, with the highest possible efficiency achievable, using the knowledge provided by the physical, biological and engineering sciences.

At present, weapons are both the leading and the most profitable commodity in international trade.

The capitalist system systematically selects in favor of weapons production. The advantages of investments in weapons originate in the high price of weapons, their rapid obsolescence and turnover (in arms-race or in war conditions), the secure financing of military research and production (public taxes, resource allocation, and national-debt imposition – mechanisms not available for any other system of commodity production), and the monopoly, or semi-monopoly of armament manufacturers. The latter originates in the designation of military production designs and methods as state secrets, the high costs of armament technology and manufacture, and the privileged relationship established between long-time military producers and government defense and procurement agencies.

From the point of view of neo-classical economics, these circumstances which select in favor weapons production and use, reflect only the behavior of a rational “economic man.” From the point of view of life, this privileging of weapons, is not understandable, and decried as the “madness of the arms race,” or the “insanity of the military institution.”

Weapons manufacturers depend on the government for their ability to make a profit. The relationship is not one way. Weapons promote the global market system by:

a. Depredating goods (such as food), and thereby opening up markets for priced commodities (processed food) to take their place.

b. Clearing indigenous and unarmed peoples from lands and resources, thereby ensuring the re-structuring of social organizations around money.

c. Terrorizing movements opposed to the global market regime.

(McMurtry 1999, pp. 171 and 173-174, summarized in Hall 2008c, pp. 76-77).

Ecological Unsustainability

1. Ecological Footprint: The concept of a community’s “ecological footprint” was developed by Redefining Progress, an economic public policy think-tank, based in Oakland, CA. The ecological footprint of a community is a measure of the amount of biologically productive land and sea the community requires to produce the resources it consumes and absorb the waste it generates.

In its 2006 report, Redefining Progress calculates that, in 2005, humanity was exceeding its ecological limits by 39 percent. At present rates of resource consumption and waste generation, humanity would need the bio-capacity of 1.39 Earths to maintain the present level of prosperity for future generations.

The Carbon component of the ecological footprint: The ecological footprint has a carbon component. On the supply side, the carbon bio-capacity includes carbon storage areas (timber, coal, oil), and on the footprint (demand) side, the carbon wastes generated consist predominately of carbon emissions.

(Redefining Progress 2006, quoted pp. 10 and 178. Global Footprint Network 2008, pp. 1-4. Redefining Progress 2008, p. 2. Redefining Progress, #1 undated, p. 2. Redefining Progress, #2 undated, p. 1. Redefining Progress, #3 undated, pp. 1-4).

2. Planetary Ecosystems: In its 2005 report, the United Nations Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (representing four years of work by 1,400 scientists worldwide), concludes that of the 24 “services” provided for humanity by the planetary ecosystems, 15 (60 percent) are being degraded or used unsustainably. Among the jeopardized “services” are the provision of fresh water, the availability of capture fisheries, the purification of air and water, and the regulation of pests, natural hazards, and regional/local climate. The loss and degradation of these ecosystem “services” are not only substantial but they are also growing (p. 10. United Nations Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005, Synthesis, p. 1).

The Action needed

1. The ecological Footprint: In its 2006 report, Redefining Progress calculates that the per capita ecological footprint in the United States, is 7 times the globally supportable level. To live on its share of world bio-capacity, therefore, the United States must decrease its footprint by 86 percent.

The per capita ecological footprint in Western Europe is 4 times the globally supportable level. To live on its share of world bio-capacity, Western Europe must decrease its footprint by 75 percent (pp. 11 and 168).

2. The Carbon Component of the ecological Footprint: In its 2005 report, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment estimates that in order to keep the temperature of the planet from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius [the tipping point for self-generating, exponential (runaway) heating], the carbon emissions of humanity must begin to decline by around 2015, and by 2050, hold steady at between 800 and 1,800 pounds (average 1,300 pounds) per year per person.

Present carbon emissions in the United States are 12,000 pounds per person, per year – 9 times the needed steady state level. To live on its share of sustainable carbon emissions, therefore, the United States must decrease its emissions by 85 to 93 percent (average 89 percent) by 2050 (p. 11. United Nations Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005, Policy Responses).

Capitalism cannot save what it destroys

1. Not “a few bad Apples”: A popular view is that capitalism is essentially sound, the present environmental destruction originating only from the extremes of some large corporations, which should be restrained. The problem is not with the system but with a few individuals. Capitalism can be domesticated.

In The enemy of nature – the end of capitalism or the end of the world? (2002), ecosocialist Joel Kovel writes about this claim:

“[This] neo-Smithian Promised Land . . . is essentially an upbeat fairy tale standing in for history, and if it were true, the world would be a much easier place to change.”

(Pp. 158 and 205-206. Kovel, quoted pp. 205-206. See the present document under “From Investments to global Control,” “2002, Joel Kovel.” Also under “An ecosocialist Manifesto.” And also under “From Investments to global Control,” “David Korten”).

2. No “triple Bottom Line”: In 1998, Paul Hawken’s book, The ecology of commerce (1993), was voted by professors in 67 business schools throughout the United States, as the number one college text on business and the environment. The book introduces the concept of “comprehensive outcome,” whereby, in accounting for a process or event, not only the result to the immediate participants at the time of purchase is taken into account, but also other results, to all parties.

Such efforts, however, by “green capitalists” to pursue a “triple bottom line,” considering the well-being of people and nature in addition to profits, are doomed. When the three goals come into conflict, as they inevitably do, profit must take priority.

(P. xi. Wikipedia “Paul Hawken” 2008, p. 1. See the present document under “From Investments to global Control,” “1999, Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins and Hunter Lovins.” And also under “Capitalism cannot save what it destroys,” Number 7, “Not ‘Efficiency only’”).

3. Implosion perhaps, but too late: Capitalism may crumble, as its foundations in nature, in the form of ecosystems and resources, are eroded and depleted. However, this is unlikely to occur before the point of no return. Capitalism adapts itself, even to environmental catastrophe. Ecosystems which are dying and resources which are near depletion, are silent – not providing the system with negative feedback. The system can remain fully functional right up to the moment of utter calamity – just like a person who has fallen from the top of a 100-floor building, and has just past the second floor. This is different from capitalism’s exploitation of humans. Capitalism’s exploitation of humans gives a feedback. Workers are also consumers, and their impoverishment produces negative feedback, perhaps even economic crises (John Bellamy Foster 2002, cited pp. xi-xii and 176).

4. Not “People’s Awareness”: Futile is the hope that increasing awareness of global climate change will wake people up to the danger of the requirement by capitalism for unlimited economic growth. If the outrageous demands which capitalism has placed on billions of human beings during the past 200 years, have not led to a reconsideration of the system, the amorphous threat of climatic disruption is unlikely to do so (p. xii).

5. Not “Sustainable Development”: The phrase “sustainable development,” was first used in the United Nations document, “Our common Future,” commonly known as the “Brundtland Report” (1987). The phrase is a deception, a subterfuge for those who claim that poverty and ecological devastation can be alleviated, without confronting the fundamental contradiction in capitalism between economic growth and ecological sustainability (pp. 112 and 196).

6. Not technological “Solutions”: The solution to the ecological problem requires more ecological and economic justice, not more enrichment of the investing class.

Instead, the investing class, including big business, policy-makers and scientists, is focusing on outrageous technological tours de force, such as carbon sequestration, stratospheric sulfur seeding, and colossal, space-based mirrors. Such solutions side-step the fact that capitalism, with its dependence on economic growth, was made possible by the bonanza of fossil fuel power, and cannot handle the deep energy cuts which are now necessary. Capitalism cannot give up the exploitation of concentrated energy that can be easily mined or pumped.

Rather than being used for technological tours de force, the fossil fuels which remain should be used to subsidize the building of a society which can thrive without those fuels. The continued exploitation of workers at the bottom of the wealth scale, in order to serve customers at the top of the scale, is no longer a feasible solution (p. 116. Govindasamy and Caldeira 2000, cited pp. 116 and 197. Crutzen 2006, cited pp. 116 and 197).

7. Not “Efficiency only”: Many “green capitalists” promote the view that humanity can achieve both a healthy environment and freedom from want, by means of increases in efficiency only. Earth-friendly materials, processes, and energy sources, will allow businesses to make fewer demands on the material world while also generating the needed monetary wealth.

Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins, and Hunter Lovins take this view in Natural capitalism – creating the next industrial revolution (1999). The book received praise from President Bill Clinton who called it one of the world’s “five most important books.” In 2003, former President of the Soviet Union (1990-1991), Mikhail Gorbachev (1931-), awarded Hawken the “Green Cross Millennium Award for individual environmental Leadership” (Wikipedia “Paul Hawken” 2008, p. 1. Wikipedia “Mikhail Gorbachev” 2009, pp. 1-19).

In 2004, interviewed by Stan Cox, Senior Scientist at the Land Institute, Salina, Kansas, Hawken expressed his view that near-perfect efficiency is achievable – presumably then allowing the near-infinite growth of capitalism:

“A 99 percent reduction in the through-put of energy and resources, is possible, and will eventually occur.”

However, as English economist and logician William Stanley Jevons (1835-1882) pointed out, in his The coal question – an inquiry concerning the progress of the nation, and the probable exhaustion of our coal mines (1865/1866), efficiency measures increase rather than decrease the use of resources. In the rapidly expanding British economy of the time, the increasingly efficient use of coal was leading to economic growth, which in turn was leading to increasing coal consumption:

“It is wholly a confusion of ideas to suppose that the economical use of fuel is equivalent to a diminished consumption. The very contrary is the truth . . .”

“In fact, there is hardly a single use of fuel in which a little care, ingenuity, and expenditure of capital, may not make a considerable saving. But no one must suppose that the coal thus saved is spared. It is only saved from one use to be employed in others, and the profits gained soon lead to extended [use] in many new forms. The several branches of industry are closely inter-dependent, and progress of any one, leads to the progress of nearly all.”

(Pp. 162-163, 194 and 206. Hawken quoted p. 206. Jevons quoted p. 163. See the present document under “From Investments to global Control,” “1865, William Stanley Jevons.” Also under “From Investments to global Control,” “1999, Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins and Hunter Lovins.” And also under “Capitalism cannot save what it destroys,” Number 2, “No ‘triple Bottom Line’”).

In 2002, addressing the World Bank, Herman Daly made the same point:

“‘Efficiency first’ sounds good, especially when referred to as ‘win-win’ strategies, or more picturesquely as ’picking the low-hanging fruit.’ But the problem [with] ‘efficiency first,’ is what comes second . . .”

“‘Efficiency first,’ does not induce frugality. It makes frugality less necessary. A policy of ‘frugality first’, however, induces efficiency as a secondary consequence” (p. 163. Wikipedia “Herman Daly” 2008, p. 1).

In the United States, from 1973 to 2004, worker productivity (output per hour) increased by 76 percent. Total energy use has continued to increase, however. From 1990 to 2000, energy use rose by 17 percent (0.4 percent per capita per year in a population which increased 13 percent – from 250 to 282 million). From 1986 to 2006, greenhouse gas emissions consistently increased, except for two years, both of which were marked by economic recession (1991 and 2001).

(Pp. 164-165. Mishel, Bernstein, and Allegretto 2006, cited pp. 173 and 208. United States Bureau of the Census 2006, p. 3. See the present document under “Essential Features of Capitalism,” Number 2, “Exploitation of the People and the Land”).

In 2006, Jonathan Perraton, of the University of Sheffield, UK, after studying the electronic boom of the later 1990’s, made the same point:

“[In developed economies], although the energy intensity of GDP has fallen, . . . total use of energy continues to rise . . . Economic expansion [is accompanied by increased use of metals and energy], even if new technologies offer the potential for continuous . . . [increases in efficiency] (p. 165. Emphasis the author’s).

Increased productivity (output per worker per hour), accomplished by either pushing workers harder or improving the technology they wield, does not imply greater resource efficiency. Almost always, it means increased use of resources and increased wastes (pp. 173-174).

(See the present document under “From Investments to global Control,” “1977, Herman Daly.” And also under “Elements of a definitive Solution,” Number 6, “Building a new Community,” item c, “Large Institutions”).

8. No “Cap and Trade” Carbon Markets: Carbon trading schemes attempt to reconcile the needs of the environment, with the need for profits under the capitalist system. The latter has priority, and the schemes delay the integrated, global approach necessary to confront environmental problems. Schemes such as direct charges for pollution, a market in carbon credits, and licenses to pollute only favor the already wealthy.

a. The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM): The Kyoto Protocol is an agreement reached at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1997). It formally came into effect in 2005, as the first international treaty to address global warming. The United States has not ratified the Protocol.

The greenhouse gas emissions trading program of the Kyoto Protocol, the “Clean Development Mechanism” (CDM) – began operating in 2003. It allows wealthy nations to earn greenhouse gas credits by funding projects to reduce emissions in poorer nations. Credits are awarded according to the global-warming potential of the chemical compounds being controlled. For instance, within a time span of 100 years, one ton of methane emitted, is equivalent to 23 tons of carbon dioxide, and one ton of fluroform (HFC-23) emitted, is equivalent to 11,700 tons of carbon dioxide.

The system has failed:

i. Profits, whether obtained by increasing or decreasing global Warming: In 2004, the non-profit group CDM Watch, reported the failure of the market-friendly scheme to reduce emissions:

“Strikingly, some of the most prominent participants in the CDM, like BP, Statoil, Mitsubishi, and the World Bank, are simultaneously engaged in fossil fuel projects which directly stymie the stated intent of their CDM projects. The World Bank is currently the biggest single player in the CDM, and one of the most enthusiastic promoters of a carbon market as a means of addressing climate change.”

The World Bank priorities are as follows:

Table 1: World Bank Priorities, 2003^(a)

Project	US dollars (millions)
Emissions reduction, through six carbon funds	410
Grants, fossil fuel extraction projects	550
Financing, fossil fuel-related projects	2,500

^(a) World Socialist Web Site 2007. p. 2.

ii. Carbon Credits at no Cost: In 2007, Mark Rainer, writing for the World Socialist Web Site, reported that the basing of credits on global warming potential, has led to the issuance of most of the credits for ozone layer-depleting chemicals, in any case to be eliminated under the Montreal Protocol (1989/1999). There is little investment in alternative energy projects, which, usually being capital intensive, have a lower profit potential.

(Pp. 170 and 207. World Socialist Web Site 2007, pp. 1-3. Wikipedia “Montreal Protocol” 2008, p. 1).

b. The European Union Emissions Trading Scheme: In 2005, the European Union launched its Emissions Trading Scheme, whereby the European Commission sets a carbon allowance for each member state, and each member state distributes this allowance among its facilities with an energy generating capacity of 20 megawatts or more. Facilities exceeding their allowance may buy permits from those not using their full allowance. The first phase of the Scheme was due to be in effect until 2008.

Overnight, a “carbon trading” market sprang into life, with banks, accountancy groups and other companies charging hefty fees to put vendors in touch with sellers.

Within 18 months, the plan was recognized as a failure. In 2006, Neil O’Brien, Director of Open Europe, Westminster, UK, a think-tank which studied the Scheme, declared:

“Not only is it expensive and an administrative nightmare, but this botched attempt at central planning is having all sorts of perverse results.”

Michael Grubb, chief economist at the British Government’s Carbon Trust, attributed the failure to overly generous allowances:

“Most of the facilities ended up with surpluses last year.”

The surplus, however, was only true for private sector facilities. Public sector facilities, such as schools, hospitals, universities, prisons and military bases, exceeded their allowance, and had to buy carbon credits from the private sector (Sunday Telegraph 2006, pp. 1-2, cited pp. 170 and 207).

9. Bio-fuel Production not sustainable: The use of productive land to grow grain for ethanol production, conflicts with the use of this land to grow grain for human consumption, and puts the poorer fraction of humanity at risk of starvation. In addition, monocultures erode the land on which they are grown, and, therefore, are unsustainable.

(Pp. 11, 178 and 179. See the present document, this section, under Number 10, “Nuclear Power not sustainable”).

10. Nuclear Power not sustainable: Nuclear power uses ground resources which are not renewable. The building of nuclear plants uses large amounts of fossil fuels. The problem of waste disposal eludes solution. Under normal operations (not an accident), nuclear reactors emit radioactive wastes into the atmosphere and water. Such substances include the fission gas Xenon-135, and its decay product, Cesium-135, the latter with a half life of 2 million years.

(Pp. 11, 178 and 179. Drey 2005).

Non-acceptance of “necessary Evils”: The Sierra Club and other environmental organizations promote acceptance of bio-fuel production and nuclear power as “necessary evils,” and on this basis declare that renewable sources of energy will enable the United States to decrease its carbon emissions by some 86 percent by 2050. The view is deceptive, both in relation to bio-fuel production and in relation to nuclear power (pp. 11, 178 and 179).

ELEMENTS of a definitive Solution:

1. Awareness that powerful Interests may not let it happen: Pressure from big oil, gas and coal interests may well defeat attempts to lock energy-rich sources permanently in the ground. Economic pressure to exploit available fossil fuels is likely to be considerable, perhaps irresistible (pp. 11 and 178-179).

2. Infrastructure Building will need Fossil Fuels: The building of a renewable energy infrastructure will require vast expenditures of non-renewable energy (pp. 11 and 179).

3. No Population Growth: In 2008, the population of the United States was 305 million. By 2050, the population is projected to be 439 million, an increase of 134 million (44 percent). The decrease of 86 percent in ecological footprint and 89 percent in carbon emissions must occur taking the needs of this new population into account.

(P. 12. United States Bureau of the Census 2006, pp. 1 and 4. Wikipedia “Demographics of the United States 2008,” p. 1).

4. Economic Contraction: The expected and planned economic growth of the United States between now and 2050, must occur without increasing either the country’s ecological footprint or its carbon emissions.

Table 1 shows that economic growth puts out of reach the goal of decreasing the country’s ecological footprint using efficiency measures only (pp. 164-165).

Table 1: Reduction in ecological Footprint achieved

under various Assumptions, 2010-2050^(a)

Increase in Efficiency (percent, per year, 2010-2050)	Growth in gross domestic Product (GDP)^(b) (percent, per year, 2010-2050)	Total Reduction in ecological Footprint achieved by 2050 (percent)
4	0	81^(c)
4	1	71
4	2	56
4	3	33

^(a)Pp. 164-165. United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of economic Analysis (BEA), p. 1. Financial Forecast Center 2006, p. 5. Each set of assumption is expected to hold true of 40 consecutive years, 2010-2050.

^(b) The gross domestic product (GDP) is the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States. In 2008, the U.S. GDP was 14.3 trillion dollars.

^(c) This 81 percent reduction meets the necessary requirement for the United States to live on its fair share of resource consumption and waste generation by the year 2050. The goal of achieving this by increasing efficiency only, however, is probably unrealistic. For the first few years of a 4 percent yearly increase in efficiency which has to last for 40 consecutive year, finding new ways to increase efficiency by “picking the low-hanging fruits,” might be feasible, but by the 20^th or 30^th year, achieving further increases in efficiency would present a formidable challenge.

For purposes of comparison, Table 2 shows the growth of the United States gross domestic product (GDP) since 1981.

Table 2: United States, Gross domestic Product (GDP),

annual Growth Rate, 1981-2007^(a)

Years	Gross domestic Product (GDP), annual Growth Rate
1981-1991	3.0
1992-1995	1.4
1996-2000	2.7
2001-2005	1.4
2006-2007	2.2

^(a) Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), CQ Press 2008, p. 1).

5. Renewable Sources of Energy: The United States must decrease its carbon emissions by around 89 percent by 2050. For ease of calculations, let us assume a necessary reduction of 90 percent.

Table 3 shows various alternatives for achieving this goal. Even using renewable sources of energy for half the country’s consumption by 2050, will require living on 10 to 15 percent of the present level of energy use.

Table 3: Reduction in Carbon emissions achieved

under various Assumptions, 2050^(a)

Energy provided by renewable Sources. 2050 (percent of total)	Reduction in Energy Consumption, 2010-2050 (percent)	Achieved Carbon Emission Reduction. 2050 (percent)
0	90	90
50	80	90
50	70	85

^(a) Pp. 11 and 12.

6. Building a new Community:

a. Laws: Calls for worker ownership, green taxes (particularly carbon taxes), strict regulation of businesses, enforcement of anti-trust laws, and the redistribution of wealth, put pressure on the capitalist system. We need to put capitalism under pressure.

b. Non-violent Rebellion: Community efforts may well build small organizations and structures which transcend the current economic order, refusing to be ruled by a tiny class of owners. This refusal, however, is likely to bring on major retaliation.

The new organizations and structures must be specifically intended as parts of a system to succeed capitalism.

c. Large Institutions: Herman Daly and others have emphasized the need to build large institutions intended from their inception, not as appendages to a capitalist economy, but as part of a successor economic system (pp. 174-175).

In his Steady state economics (1977/1991), Daly suggests that if, planet-wide, we are to live within our material means, we must create institutions which have the power to:

i. Population: Limit the rate of reproduction of our species, so as to halt or reverse population growth.

ii. Material Through-put: Hold our total resources-to-waste through-put down to a strictly sustainable level.

iii. Wealth disparities: Set upper and lower limits on the wealth and income of every individual or household.

These policies are synergistic. Following only one or two will undermine the goal.

(P. 160. See the present document under “From Investments to global Control,” “1977, Herman Daly.” And also under “Capitalism cannot save what it destroys,” Number 7, “Not ‘Efficiency only’”).

An ecosocialist Manifesto

In 2001, Joel Kovel and anthropologist Michael Lowy co-wrote, “An ecosocialist Manifesto” which expresses, in its opening lines, the failure of capitalism with respect to both humans and the environment:

“The 21^st century opens on a catastrophic note, with an unprecedented degree of ecological breakdown, and a chaotic world order beset with terror and clusters of low-grade, disintegrative warfare that spread like gangrene across great swathes of the planet – for example, Central Africa, the Middle East, Northwestern South America – and reverberate throughout the nations. In our view, the crises of ecology and those of societal breakdown are profoundly inter-related, and should be seen a different manifestations of the same structural forces.”

“The former broadly stems from rampant industrialization that overwhelms the earth’s capacity to buffer and contain ecological destabilization. The latter stems from the form of imperialism known as globalization, with its disintegrative effects on societies that stand in its path.”

“Moreover, these underlying forces are essentially different aspects of the same drive, which must be identified as the central dynamic that moves the whole – the expansion of the world capitalist system.”

(Kovel and Lowy 2001, p. 1. See the present document under “From Investments to global Control,” “2002, Joel Kovel.” Also under “Capitalism cannot save what it destroys, Number 1, “Not ‘a few bad Apples’”; and under “From Investments to global Control,” “1995, David Korten”).

Not “green Capitalism”: In 2005, Michael Lowy further clarified the lie of “green capitalism”:

“[A] rationality [which is] limited by the capitalist market, with its short-sighted calculation of profit and loss, stands in intrinsic contradiction to ecological rationality, which takes into account the length of natural cycles.”

“It is not a matter of contrasting ‘bad’ ecocidal capitalists [with] ‘good’ green capitalists. It is the system itself, based on ruthless competition, the demands of profitability, and the race for rapid profit, which is the destroyer of nature’s balance.”

“Would-be green capitalism is nothing but a publicity stunt, a label for the purpose of selling a commodity, or – in the best of cases – a local initiative equivalent to a drop of water on the arid soil of the capitalist desert” (Lowy 2005, quoted pp. 173 and 208).

stan cox’s Words of Wisdom

Stan Cox, Senior Scientist at the Land Institute, Salina, Kansas, in Sick planet – corporate food and medicine (2008), cautions:

“Nitrogen fertilizer, produced largely with natural gas, made it possible for us to overpopulate the Earth, and now we’re hooked on it. Some day, as reserves of fossil fuels dwindle, our descendants will come to inhabit a less crowded planet, [and live] on crops [grown] entirely [on] sunlight and natural fertility. Whether that population decline happens humanely, through planning and restraint, or cruelly, through catastrophe, depends largely on how we design our economic system to manage non-renewable resources.”

“For now, in [the] rapidly industrializing nations that attempt to emulate the West’s rise to economic power, resources are being managed very badly indeed” (p. 102).

my conclusions

President Barack Obama’s inaugural Address: The Old Testament is alive and well in the United States. President Obama’s inaugural speech, January 20, 2009, reflects the basic assumptions of Western civilization which originate in God’s call to Abraham – we are chosen by God, called on to set forth, and blessed. We are traveling to the “Promised Land.” We put our faith in an abstract God, and in other abstract concepts, such as time (“history”), “technology” and “the economy” (the “market”).

1. We are chosen: God calls on us like he did on Abraham. We are the chosen ones:

“This is the source of our confidence – the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.”

2. Our Ancestors set forth: Like Abraham, our ancestors set forth to territories unknown:

“For us [our ancestors] packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life . . . This is the journey we continue today.”

3. We are blessed: God blesses us, like he did Abraham:

“Let it be said . . . that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter, and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God’s grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.”

“ God bless you. And God bless the United States of America.”

4. Time leads to the “Promised Land”: Time (history) is linear and a vehicle to eventual perfection. For the United States, the “Promised Land” is equality, freedom, happiness, prosperity, and power over others. [The referent to the word “equality” is left unsaid, and hence also the question as to whether actual humans are equal to (immortal) corporate-persons]:

“The time has come . . . to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation – the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to purse their full measure of happiness . . . The risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things . . . have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.”

“We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth.”

“So let us mark this day with remembrance of who we are and how far we have traveled.”

5. Faith in “Technology”: “Technology” will fix our present inefficient health system. It will enable a smooth transition to renewable sources of energy, thus pre-empting the necessity to change our way of life, including our car transportation system:

“We will . . . wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories.”

6. Faith in “the Economy”: In complete disregard of the evidence that the Earth already now cannot sustain human economic activities, “the economy” must grow:

“The state of our economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act – not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth.”

7. Faith in “the Market”:

a. “The market” brings “freedom” (with the referent of who is the beneficiary of this freedom left unsaid. In actuality, the market brings freedom only to those who have money to pay for what they need or want):

“The power [of the market] to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched . . . ”

b. “The market” is a deterministic force at least partly outside of human agency. It sometimes spins out of control and must be reigned back:

“. . . but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control – that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous.”

The Tale of Abraham thus takes on a modern tone. Unfortunately, this degree of egocentrism and grandiosity is not what humans need, as they enter a period of extreme turmoil, negotiating the transition from a non-sustainable to a sustainable world economy. It does not appear that the United States will be a cooperative world citizen.

(Obama 2009. See the present document under “History with an Old Testament Template,” “Modernity – The United States).

Richard Heinberg and the Post Carbon Institute:

1. Richard Heinberg: Richard Heinberg, Senior Fellow at the Post Carbon Institute, Sebastopol, CA, is the author of The party’s over – oil, war and the fate of industrial societies (2003), Power down – options and actions for a post-carbon world (2004), The oil depletion protocol (2006), and Peak everything – waking up to the century of declines (2007).

In his speech, “Endless Consumption – The Party’s over,” given in Amherst, MA, on April 28, 2008, Heinberg does not make the connection between exploitation of the environment and exploitation of people. The connecting link is the capitalist system which is based on exploitation for money profit. Heinberg does not make the link. He restricts his remarks to the environment, and does not ask such questions as, “Why has consumption gone out of control?” or “Why is food flown into the United States?” (The answer to both questions is that, under capitalism, any transaction is valid, provided a profit is to be made from it).

Heinberg focuses on the United States and its impending oil crisis. His solutions include the use of renewable energy sources, conservation (efficiency and curtailment of use), more labor in agriculture, relocation of people (from cities and from the coasts), the re-designing of communities (eliminating the need for transportation), and replacement of the present transportation infrastructure. At different levels of population size, Heiberg emphasizes: on a personal level, home insulation and local food production, on a local and regional level, community transit systems, and on the national and international levels, policies leading to independence from fossil fuels, and communities where people live cooperatively and peacefully.

There is nothing to object to here. The problem is whether the capitalist system, with its constant, voracious need for new markets, its permanent need to expand into every corner of the Earth, and its need to control resources so it can manufacture commodities, will let communities live cooperatively and peacefully. Capitalism is intolerant of any other economic arrangement. History shows that it will either attack and eliminate, or buy out any competing system.

In my opinion, Heinberg’s focus is both geographically narrow (the United States only for a problem which is clearly global), and lacking in depth (talking only about resource depletion, without questioning the validity of the economic system under which this resource depletion is occurring).

Heinberg focuses on life indicators as measurements of national well-being, rejecting the conventional indicators based on money transactions, such as the gross domestic product (GDP):

“We have to change how we think, because we have an economic system based on the idea of perpetual growth, and we define growth as the rate at which we can dig resources out of the ground, use them for a very brief time, and turn them into trash, or waste. That’s not a very intelligent definition of growth . . . However, if we were to re-define growth, re-define progress, in the sense of levels of education, how few people are in prison rather than how many, how peaceful we are rather than how big our military is, how healthy we are, and things like that – there is no limit to that kind of growth. We can enjoy cultural enrichment from generation to generation to generation on into the future. But we have to understand that in order to do that, we also have to live within earth’s limits, both in terms of number of human beings and rates of per capita consumption.”

Again, the problem is that this is not the way the capitalist system works. In order to survive, the capitalist system will kill every initiative of this kind in its path. Capitalism will not bow to environmentalists and accept its demise humbly. It is now in control of the world, and unless addressed directly, its fall is likely to happen only after irreparable damage has been done to both the human population on the planet, and the planet itself (Heinberg 2008, p. 1).

2. The Post Carbon Institute: Julian Darley is the founder, in 2003, of the Post Carbon Institute, an initiative of the MetaFoundation, a non-profit organization which he co-founded in 2000. The Post Carbon Institute focuses on issues related to “Peak Oil.” Its mission is “to get society off fossil fuels fast.” Its motto is, “Reduce consumption, produce locally.”

In his speech, “The Post Carbon World,” given in Lyons, CO, on September 28, 2007, Darley did not challenge the economic system in which our unsustainable way of life is being fostered (Post Carbon Institute 2009, pp. 1-2. Darley 2007, p. 1).

We need environmentalists who challenge the economic system in which they live.

References

All non-specified page numbers refer to:

Cox, Stan. 2008. Sick Planet – corporate food and medicine. Ann Arbor, MI: Pluto.

Specified references include:

Ackerman, Frank, 1997. “Overview Essay,” in Human well-being and economic goals. Frank Ackerman, David Kiron, Neva Goodwin, Jonathan Harris and Kevin Gallagher, editors. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Summarized in Francoise Hall, 2008c. “’the Market Paradigm and the Destruction of Life.” October 21 (97 pages, unpublished).

Breytenbach, Breyten. 2008. Interview with Amy Goodman, “An Hour with the renowned South African Poet, Writer, Painter and anti-apartheid Activist, Breyten Breytenbach.” Democracy Now!, December 26.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/12/26. Accessed December 31, 2008.

Crutzen, P., 2006. “Albedo Enhancement by stratospheric Sulfur Injections – a Contribution to resolve a Policy Dilemma?” Climatic Change 77:211-220. Cited by Stan Cox, pp. 116 and 197.

Darley, Julian, 2007. “The Post Carbon World.” Address in Lyons, CO. September 28. Broadcast by Alternative Radio.

http://www.alternativeradio.org/programs/DARJ001.shtml. Accessed January 23, 2009.

Drey, Kay. 2005. “Routine Releases from nuclear Reactors,” Address, Conference, “Is nuclear Power coming back?” November. Broadcast by TUC Radio.

http://www.tucradio.org/new.html.

Financial Forecast Center, 2006. “U.S. Gross domestic Product (GDP).”

http://www.forecasts.org/gdp.htm. Accessed January 1, 2009.

Foster, John Bellamy. “Capitalism and Ecology – the Nature of the Contradiction.” Monthly Review 54 (4): 6-16. Cited by Stan Cox pp. xi-xii and 176.

Global Footprint Network, 2008. “Frequently asked Questions.”

http:www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/frequently_asked_questions.Updated December 15. Accessed January 2, 2009.

Govindasamy, B., and K. Caldeira, 2000. “Geo-engineering Earth’s Radiation Balance to mitigate CO₂-induced Climate Change.” Geophysical Research Letters 27:2141-2144. Cited by Stan Cox, pp. 116 and 197.

Hall, Francoise Hall.

2004. “Technology driven by Faith in God.” April 5 (28 pages, unpublished).

2008a. “The moral Universe of the ‘Free World.’” March 30 (51 pages, unpublished).

2008b. “The Myth behind corporate Globalization.” June 1 (58 pages, unpublished).

2008c. “The Market Paradigm and the Destruction of Life.” October 21 (97 pages, unpublished).

Heinberg, Richard. 2008. “Endless Consumption – The Party’s over.” Address in Amherst, MA. April 28. Broadcast by Alternative Radio.

http://www.alternativeradio.org/programs/HEIR002.shtml. Accessed January 22, 2009.

Korten, David. 2009. Interview with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez. Democracy Now! January 26.

Kovel, Joel and Michael Lowy, 2001. “An ecosocialist Manifesto.” September. Ozleft (an independent forum of strategy, tactics and history in the Australian left, green and labor movements).

http://members.optushome.com.au/spainter/Ecosocialist.html. Accessed January 9, 2009.

Lowy, Michael, 2005. “What is Ecosocialism?” Capitalism Nature Socialism, June.

McMurtry, John.

1999. The cancer stage of capitalism. Sterling, VA: Pluto

Summarized in Francoise Hall, 2008c. “The Market Paradigm and the Destruction of Life.” October 21 (97 pages, unpublished).

2002. Value wars – the global market versus the life economy. Sterling, VA: Pluto.

Summarized in Francoise Hall, 2008a. “The moral Universe of the ‘Free World.’” March 30 (51 pages, unpublished).

Mishel, Lawrence, Jared Bernstein, and Sylvia Allegretto, The state of working America 2006/2007. Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute. Cited by Stan Cox, p. 173.

Noble, David.

2005. Beyond the Promised Land – the movement and the myth. Toronto, ON, Canada: Between the Lines.

Summarized in Francoise Hall, 2008b. “The Myth behind corporate Globalization.” June 1 (58 pages, unpublished).

1997/1999. The religion of technology – the divinity of man and the spirit of invention. New York, N.Y.: Penguin.

Summarized in Francoise Hall, 2004. “Technology driven by Faith in God.” April 5 (28 pages, unpublished).

Obama, Barack. 2009. Inauguration Address. Washington, D.C. January 20. Broadcast by the BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/obama_inauguration/7840646.stm. Accessed January 22, 2009.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), undated. Reproduced by the CQ Press, 2008. “Average annual Growth rate of Gross domestic Product (GDP), 1981-2007 (percent) – Organization for economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Table A-2.” Washington, D.C.: SAGE Publications/CQ Press.

www.cqpress.com/cs/europe/PDFs/TBL-2.pdf. Accessed January 1, 2009.

Parenti, Michael.

2007. Contrary notions – the Michael Parenti reader. San Francisco, CA: City Lights.

2008, “Contrary Notions.” Presentation, Berkeley, CA. June 17. Broadcast by Alternative Radio.

http://www.alternativeradio.org. Accessed June 21, 2008.

Post Carbon Institute, 2009. “About Us.”

http://www.postcarbon.org. Accessed January 23, 2009.

Redefining Progress,

2006. “Ecological Footprint of Nations.”

http://www.rprogress.org/publications/2006/Footprint.pdf. (Not accessed).

2008. “About Redefining Progress.” Oakland, CA.

http://www/rprogress.org/about_us.htm. Accessed December 30, 2008.

#1 undated. “About the ecological Footprint.”

http:/www.rprogress.org/ecological_footprint.htm. Accessed December 30, 2008.

#2 undated. “Bio-capacity and Footprint Accounts.”

http://www.ecologicalfootprint.org/result.php?cnt=USA. Accessed January 2, 2009.

#3 undated. “Footprint FAQs.”

http://www.rprogress.org/ecological_footprint/footprint_FAQs.htm. Accessed January 2, 2009.

Sunday Telegraph, 2006. “Europe’s Carbon Trading leaves a nasty Smell.” July 2.

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20060803/20060803_08.html. Accessed January 8, 2009.

United Nations, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005.

Synthesis – Ecosystems and human well-being. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Policy Responses. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

United States,

Bureau of the Census, 2006. “Population in the United States, 1950-2005, with Projection to 2050.” August 24.

http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2006/Update59_data.htm. Accessed November 29, 2006.

Department of Commerce, Bureau of economic Analysis, 2008. “Real gross domestic Product – Definition.” December 23.

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease/htm. Accessed January 1, 2009.

Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 1975. Springfield, MA: Merriam.

Wikipedia,

2008.

“Herman Daly.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. December 29. Accessed January 10, 2009.

“Demographics of the United States.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. December 31. Accessed January 1, 2009.

“Eco-socialism.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. December 7. Accessed January 8, 2009.

“Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. November 22. Accessed January 10, 2009.

“Paul Hawken.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. November 26. Accessed January 11, 2009.

“Montreal Protocol.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. December 11. Accessed January 9, 2009.

“David F. Noble.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. December 16. Accessed January 17, 2009.

2009.

“Mikhail Gorbachev.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. January 11. Accessed January 12, 2009.

“Karl Marx.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. January 4. Accessed January 10, 2009.

“John McMurtry.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. January 4. Accessed January 11, 2009.

World Socialist Web Site, 2007. “Kyoto’s ‘Clean Development Mechanism’: Global Warming and its Market Fix.” (Mark Rainer). January 13.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jan2007/glob-j13.shtml. Accessed January 6, 2009.

***