Can Capitalism Be Sustainable?

By Lionel Anet

09 November, 2015
Countercurrents.org

The question can be expressed this way.

Life is in continual change that’s we go from ‘A’ to ‘B’: if ‘A’ is all our activities and ‘B’ is the direction world’s people take, which creates the future ‘A’. So ‘B’ creates ‘A’ to whatever ‘B”s direction is and ‘A”s ability to follow that direction within nature’s time constraints and ultimate limits. ‘B’’s social direction from hunter-gatherers up till now had little to no planning, it happen.

So, how does civilisation and its last stage, capitalism, measure up to the above? Both, but particularly civilisation, determine its success with expansion that’s capturing occupied land, which also increased labour’s load and more slaughter. However, fossil fuelled powered capitalism requires economic growth as expansion was reaching its limit of that ‘A’ (activity). Hence we have ‘B’ (new direction) of endless growth with fossil fuels, which satisfy capitalism at the expense of nature. So we’ve had incredible growth in every area, population, which is due to go beyond 9 billion by the middle of the century with an already damaged nature that we are still degrading. But where’s the new ‘B’ (new direction), which is desperately needed, for ‘A’ (activity) for future generations’ ability to exist?

It may be possible with a change direction for capitalism to be sustainable, but is that enough to enable nature to support us with that expected population? In the thirties when I was a child with a population of less than 2 billion, with most of the environment in pristine condition, capitalism could have been sustainable. But today we need much more than sustainability, we need to reduce our population and our consumption, we also need to allow nature to revitalise. This is way out of capitalism scope to manage. But it should be easier for people to live without the burden of capitalism.

Hence we can only survive with a dramatically new ‘B’ (direction) that would give us the ability to do what is needed for a new ‘A’ (activity) that would allow a revitalise nature, to improve our life by achieving all those vital changes. Although we know a new ‘B’ (direction) is needed, but at present we are incapable to instigate it, as it’s mainly an emotional difficulty, caused by the education we all receive, its part of ‘A’ (activity). It was to maintain economic growth measured in the elusive financial terms, instead of, assessing the efficiency of its physical logistical aspects.

We must make a U-turn with ‘B’ (new direction) it will take some time but it must be taken to its conclusion, that’s a population of about 2 billion with an economy that has allowed nature to recoup. This journey must start sooner than later. We all owe it to future generations, as all living things do to their offspring.

First the present fatal ‘A’ (activity) must be seen to be so by most people and many of the 1% wealthy. That may only be achieved by convincing as many of the 1% that to survive, the system will need to change, that’s to abandon growth, which is now getting increasingly hard to achieve and is creating more damage than benefit. To do that it will be necessary to gradually change from competition to cooperation. This must be gradual and consistent as all section of capitalist socioeconomic system must be eventually discarded. Looking at our competitive schools, universities, work, markets, and sport, it’s an incredible task of redressing it all to a cooperative state. That competitiveness was based on a fantasy of perpetual growth on an infinitely resourced planet.
Our intellectuals have done us a great harm; it was due to the narrowness and deceptiveness of their schooling and then by the separation of disciplines, the reductionist approach. That system produced a vast amount of knowledge, but knowledge for knowledge sake is purposeless it needs a ‘B’ (direction) to use that knowledge to be constructive instead of the civilised destructive and capitalism ominousness for people and maybe all life. Yet our hope is with both the intellectuals because they got the ability that will be needed, and the 1% due to their present power, to use in changing ‘B’ direction.

Nevertheless, the difficulty and challenge of dealing with this ‘A’ (activity), can’t be compare with the hopelessness of business as usual and letting future people suffer the most horrific death because we can’t be bothered to think of a new ‘B’ (direction). No one would suffer. Everyone would gain more than lose.

One must take into account how long lasting the present ‘A’ (activity) affects will take to change to the new environment after the new ‘B’ (direction) is introduced. It will take some time for the biosphere and our population to return back to what it was before the massive use of fossil fuels.

The nuclear family is centred on private property, which includes children to keep the wealth and power within one’s family, which is anti-social and must change to fit human needs. Hence we need to go to a more communal setup that will be able to cope with the necessary reduction of children and improve their safety and welfare. Also, to survive, our intellectuals will have to abandon their despairing view of human nature and their much admired civilisation, which we all attain from deceptive education.

Lionel Anet is a member of Sydney U3A University of the Third Age, of 20 years standing and now a life member