Beautiful piece and Meadows is a big inspiration for me and Life Itself.
Reading this, you may be interested in the Second Renaissance initiative https://secondrenaissance.net which builds on Meadows and others to set out a vision and path forward beyond capitalism in a concrete, systems informed and inner led way.
Finally we (at Life Itself) recently put out a third white paper in that series entitled From Polycrisis to Metacrisis that goes a bit deeper into the ideological drivers (including capitalism) of the polycrisis and metacrisis we are in https://news.lifeitself.org/p/from-polycrisis-to-metacrisis-a-short
When I learned about Species’ Carrying Capacity in a biology class and asked what the carrying capacity was for humans, the teachers said that the term only applied to non-human species I said ‘are you so sure about that?’? This is exactly the same idea. There will be some limiting factor (population to resources ratio, available space, or in human case even geopolitics) to exponential growth……
Needs more marxism and Leninism. The defeat of the USSR and Eastern European socialism was caused not by flaws within those nations, though they had many flaws. That defeat was largely driven by external attacks from capitalist nations. The Marxist project was only project that even came close to moving humanity away from capitalism. Reviving that project on a global level centered on China-USA cooperation is the macro-level that contains all the lower level systemic inputs.
Belloc's "The Servile State" had much the same impact on me. The problem with capitalism, and pretty much every other economic and political system, is that it concentrates power in a small group of people, and that power (wealth) is used to further their concentration of power and wealth. We need to use the principles of subsidiarity to design our systems. All solutions should be found at the lowest possible level and the majority of power should concentrated there as well. Here in America, we pride ourselves on our "republic" when, in reality, the power and wealth are all concentrated at the very top. Sure, we get just enough scraps from the table to make us think we have a say, but any honest observer surely realizes that our laws are enforced unequally, the capital is controlled by those that have the most of it and it's all just a giant club, that, in the words of George Carlin, we don't belong to. We cast off a king (though that really isn't the truth but our Founders needed a convenient scapegoat at the time), only to find ourselves ruled by a disbursed and nearly invisible caste of demi-kings that cannot be held to account. This seems to be the human condition. I would never argue for a system like Marxism, for again, all the power is concentrated at the top and in the hands of the few. But capitalism, as it is practiced here, is just Marxism with a smiley face.
When you said, "I don't think you know what capitalism is, do you..." I have been lamenting the same problem. The word is dropped occasionally, but not many people seem to know what it is, or discuss it deeply at all.
Are you sure you know what it is?
I ask because I have also spent years studying its history and mechanics, etc, and in this article I did not find the words "property" or "wage labor," so I'm not convinced, based on this article, that you know what it is.
You wrote,
"What defines capitalism is capital - that is, wealth that is intended to grow. The cult of capitalism is based on the ideology that infinite growth is both good and possible, "
I don't agree with your definition. I believe what you mentioned is not fundamentally what capitalism is, but downstream effects of it.
Capitalism is not just an ideology, and while it demands infinite growth, ... WHY does it do that?
Few people seem to discuss this. I don't get much indication that people really know.
I don't believe even Marx fully knew what capitalism is, so it's not an easy task to define or talk about. (Though, consulting many of his writings and ideas, even if indirectly through Marxist scholars, is important for anyone talking about it, and claiming they know what it is.)
I am not even going to claim that I fully understand it, myself. However, a definition that precludes a discussion of capitalist property, wage labor, and the relationship between boss and worker, is still leaving everyone in the dark about what it is.
I’m surprised you single out economists as objecting to the conclusions of Meadows’ team. Aren’t these the very people with a grasp of how much supply there is, opposing demand? Dr. Richard Wolff come immediately to mind.
The obvious objectors, to me, at any rate, would be the super-rich. They don’t want anyone crushing their dream.
I just finished the Scene on Radio capitalism season, and I was so surprised that I had never heard of the Limits of Growth! I agree that it’s the most important economic theory that no one has ever heard of. I definitely need to read Thinking in Systems now!
Also, the number of men who showed up in this comment section to explain capitalism to you is just silly. Being a woman with ideas on the internet is definitely controversial.
Anyone who likes this will enjoy Schumachers Small is Beautiful. It also runs themes of limits to growth, although a bit outdated, is well worth a read!
I have lived with club of Rome stuff since I was at school more than 50 years ago. It's main contentions have gained weight. But more convincing approach is to admit some particular flaws in earlier arguments & assumptions but that these have not de-railed the overall position.
Neoliberalism since the 1970s is unrestricted capitalism, financed by the Koch Brothers implementing policies of Economist James Buchanan and Milton Friedman
Wow, thank you! I haven’t created a reading list, but that’s not a bad idea :) In the meantime, a few other books that are relevant to the capitalism discussion include “A History of the World in Seven Cheap Things” by Raj Patel and Jason Moore, “Less is More” by Jason Hickel, and “The Serviceberry” by Robin Wall Kimmerer (which is based on an essay she wrote years ago that I used to teach to my students, and you can still find for free online, I think). Happy reading!
So how do we allow Trusk to so denigrate and corrupt the paradigm that it can become visible from outside the model, simultaneously build a new model (the communalism of native Americans? Of African tribal societies? Together with the ”technology” of planetary restoration or preservation?), without falling into totalitarianism, oligarchy, or just plain chaos, in between? A question challenging enough to keep us all busy, with the promise great enough to keep us all motivated!
Beautiful piece and Meadows is a big inspiration for me and Life Itself.
Reading this, you may be interested in the Second Renaissance initiative https://secondrenaissance.net which builds on Meadows and others to set out a vision and path forward beyond capitalism in a concrete, systems informed and inner led way.
There is also a growing community and detailed white papers at https://secondrenaissance.net/paper
Finally we (at Life Itself) recently put out a third white paper in that series entitled From Polycrisis to Metacrisis that goes a bit deeper into the ideological drivers (including capitalism) of the polycrisis and metacrisis we are in https://news.lifeitself.org/p/from-polycrisis-to-metacrisis-a-short
Is there a new paradigm? Un-free markets don't seem like much fun to me.
When I learned about Species’ Carrying Capacity in a biology class and asked what the carrying capacity was for humans, the teachers said that the term only applied to non-human species I said ‘are you so sure about that?’? This is exactly the same idea. There will be some limiting factor (population to resources ratio, available space, or in human case even geopolitics) to exponential growth……
Needs more marxism and Leninism. The defeat of the USSR and Eastern European socialism was caused not by flaws within those nations, though they had many flaws. That defeat was largely driven by external attacks from capitalist nations. The Marxist project was only project that even came close to moving humanity away from capitalism. Reviving that project on a global level centered on China-USA cooperation is the macro-level that contains all the lower level systemic inputs.
Belloc's "The Servile State" had much the same impact on me. The problem with capitalism, and pretty much every other economic and political system, is that it concentrates power in a small group of people, and that power (wealth) is used to further their concentration of power and wealth. We need to use the principles of subsidiarity to design our systems. All solutions should be found at the lowest possible level and the majority of power should concentrated there as well. Here in America, we pride ourselves on our "republic" when, in reality, the power and wealth are all concentrated at the very top. Sure, we get just enough scraps from the table to make us think we have a say, but any honest observer surely realizes that our laws are enforced unequally, the capital is controlled by those that have the most of it and it's all just a giant club, that, in the words of George Carlin, we don't belong to. We cast off a king (though that really isn't the truth but our Founders needed a convenient scapegoat at the time), only to find ourselves ruled by a disbursed and nearly invisible caste of demi-kings that cannot be held to account. This seems to be the human condition. I would never argue for a system like Marxism, for again, all the power is concentrated at the top and in the hands of the few. But capitalism, as it is practiced here, is just Marxism with a smiley face.
Hello.
When you said, "I don't think you know what capitalism is, do you..." I have been lamenting the same problem. The word is dropped occasionally, but not many people seem to know what it is, or discuss it deeply at all.
Are you sure you know what it is?
I ask because I have also spent years studying its history and mechanics, etc, and in this article I did not find the words "property" or "wage labor," so I'm not convinced, based on this article, that you know what it is.
You wrote,
"What defines capitalism is capital - that is, wealth that is intended to grow. The cult of capitalism is based on the ideology that infinite growth is both good and possible, "
I don't agree with your definition. I believe what you mentioned is not fundamentally what capitalism is, but downstream effects of it.
Capitalism is not just an ideology, and while it demands infinite growth, ... WHY does it do that?
Few people seem to discuss this. I don't get much indication that people really know.
I don't believe even Marx fully knew what capitalism is, so it's not an easy task to define or talk about. (Though, consulting many of his writings and ideas, even if indirectly through Marxist scholars, is important for anyone talking about it, and claiming they know what it is.)
I am not even going to claim that I fully understand it, myself. However, a definition that precludes a discussion of capitalist property, wage labor, and the relationship between boss and worker, is still leaving everyone in the dark about what it is.
Thanks, this is interesting and I will check those podcasts.
I’m surprised you single out economists as objecting to the conclusions of Meadows’ team. Aren’t these the very people with a grasp of how much supply there is, opposing demand? Dr. Richard Wolff come immediately to mind.
The obvious objectors, to me, at any rate, would be the super-rich. They don’t want anyone crushing their dream.
I just finished the Scene on Radio capitalism season, and I was so surprised that I had never heard of the Limits of Growth! I agree that it’s the most important economic theory that no one has ever heard of. I definitely need to read Thinking in Systems now!
Also, the number of men who showed up in this comment section to explain capitalism to you is just silly. Being a woman with ideas on the internet is definitely controversial.
Anyone who likes this will enjoy Schumachers Small is Beautiful. It also runs themes of limits to growth, although a bit outdated, is well worth a read!
Would it be quicker, more efficient to read Marx. Then put that into action?
A vibrant song of hope. Yet I feel the capitalist paradigm will not be challenged until the skies have fallen.
I have lived with club of Rome stuff since I was at school more than 50 years ago. It's main contentions have gained weight. But more convincing approach is to admit some particular flaws in earlier arguments & assumptions but that these have not de-railed the overall position.
Neoliberalism since the 1970s is unrestricted capitalism, financed by the Koch Brothers implementing policies of Economist James Buchanan and Milton Friedman
This is my favorite piece I have ever read on this platform (possibly the internet). Do you have a reading list somewhere? I want to read everything
Wow, thank you! I haven’t created a reading list, but that’s not a bad idea :) In the meantime, a few other books that are relevant to the capitalism discussion include “A History of the World in Seven Cheap Things” by Raj Patel and Jason Moore, “Less is More” by Jason Hickel, and “The Serviceberry” by Robin Wall Kimmerer (which is based on an essay she wrote years ago that I used to teach to my students, and you can still find for free online, I think). Happy reading!
I thought of "Less is more" while reading this article, it changed my (previously uninformed) views on green growth in one reading.
So how do we allow Trusk to so denigrate and corrupt the paradigm that it can become visible from outside the model, simultaneously build a new model (the communalism of native Americans? Of African tribal societies? Together with the ”technology” of planetary restoration or preservation?), without falling into totalitarianism, oligarchy, or just plain chaos, in between? A question challenging enough to keep us all busy, with the promise great enough to keep us all motivated!