Is this as good as it gets?
- on Climate Change and Capitalism
American Economist and Nobel Prize Laureate, Milton Friedman, once said “Only a crisis – actual or perceived—produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around”.
In times of systemic shock, the pillars of society will come under scrutiny. In an attempt to remain constructive, a valid question may be “Is this as good as it gets?” The answer may seem simple but in the context of climate change, it’s a starting point that could open the path to the critical analysis of a variety of tools deemed “essential” for the global economy. As writer and climate change activist Naomi Klein puts it, “the future will be determined by whoever is willing to fight harder for the ideas they have lying around”. Perhaps this may lead one to believe that those with the most power will surely be able to fight the hardest. Power, however, comes in many forms and throughout this short piece, I will try to examine the gap that exists between using power as a brutish tool to oppress and understanding the tools that redeem power from its most vicious potential.
One such tool is the “purpose of capital”, a long-standing favorite of international institutions, banks, and political theorists. Capital can be defined as wealth in the form of an asset an individual or organization can hold. By purpose, I mean the definition and functionality ascribed by those with the capacity to imagine and deploy any particular concept. Whereas the power to define the purpose of capital may rest squarely in the laps of the stakeholders mentioned above, the understanding of capital is an area open to all. Taking a first step into a “critical” analysis of the purpose of capital and referring to Marxists theory as the modern initiator of this body of work, capital can mean looking into the limits of a system of oppression. Broadly speaking, a critical analysis of capital—and to some extent, capitalism—can also be as simple as asking “What is the point of the accumulation of capital?”. Under capitalism, this author hopes that the accumulation of capital, along with profit in general, are for the sake of people’s welfare. However, there wouldn’t be a need for the critical analysis of capitalism if this were generally true. Rather, capitalism is akin to a system that relies on the continuous growth of debt at the individual level as well as municipal- and state-level. Anything that sells -or any idea that stands for- a vision of endless expansion, combined with the concept of deferred payments, and applied to persons, communities and entire societies is surely a recipe for disaster—especially when considering finite resources.
The contemporary approach to the purpose of capital is to apply it to as many spheres of our lives as possible. This is caricatured by the segmentation of capital into “social, human and financial” capital proposed by anthropologists in academia and embraced by the institutions and governments financing their work. Social capital refers to the value placed on a social group’s ability to interact and relate to each other. Human capital is often classified as all qualities that support economic capital but cannot be quantified such as education, skillset, experience, health, and occasionally loyalty or even punctuality… Financial capital is any unit measured in terms of money. Each of these terms come with their own set of problems.
However, I ask the reader to consider that any substantial analysis of the current modes of capital, and innovations upon it, would eventually be used to aggravate the global environmental and social crises. That is to say, looking for new purposes of capital will most likely lead to the expansion of capitalism. The search for more definitions and new applications is a common approach to reinvigorating any concept. Like most existential inquiries, it makes up a double-edged sword for its user and the intended audience. One can imagine the smile on a banking executive’s face as he or she reads the latest popular academic work deconstructing the very tool that functions as the key resource for their work. Tremendous insight into capital as a concept is power gained, not power regulated.
It is therefore possible that the exercise of redefining capital may stumble into the pitfall of bearing little self-awareness in actually resolving the issues at the core of “political volatility, environmental issues, precarious labour markets, technological monopolies, managerial and investment short-termism”. These symptoms of capitalism are, today, the names of the files from which the executives and leaders of the world will be scavenging for new policy ideas to implement.
In the constructive spirit that is essential for the fight against climate change, I propose an alternative menu for change that will ensure greater resilience to the evolving shocks to our social, economic and environmental systems. Outside of the realm of social, human and financial capital, the purpose of capital can broadly be defined as providing for the needs of humans today and in the future. This may sound familiar as it is a major tenet of sustainable development. Like the international conferences that took up sustainable development as the centerpiece for institutional work since 1992, it is possible to rely on a number of “Goals” that capital should serve. Among the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals are clean and affordable energy, sustainable cities and communities, and quality education. These goals are supported and applied with sustainable development principles such as intergenerational equity, sustainable use of natural resources as well as the integration of environment and development. By integrating the definition of capital into the framework for sustainable development, there is more room to consider a selection of policy ideas for capitalism to still flourish across the world without depending on the expansion of banking and lending practices.
The menu of selected policy ideas is as follows: Firstly, education, including higher education, should be free to all. Secondly, all individuals should be given a level of land tenure upheld by law, and finally, governments, central banks and other organisms with the capacity to dispense large amounts of public and private money, should compensate, through credit or cash, individuals for maintaining a specific standard of living (e.g. Universal Income) or land-use in line with the securitization of the land’s tenure, local economic welfare and, by extension, a certain level of self-sufficiency of basic commodities (e.g. government regulated collective action). This is just one selection among many long-term solutions available that should hold a candle to the challenges of an apathetic political sphere and “growth mindset” businesses. It is important to note that not all of these solutions apply everywhere, but rather they can be proposals for areas of the world with weakened links to the sustainable development framework. There is much to be said in the wisdom of the middle road, a balancing of priorities and extremes, and in this case, each proposal should be considered within the local legal, social and economic context. As a caveat to this, and a recommendation for where to first look, individuals may want to focus on areas most impacted by social and economic injustices or most vulnerable to the impact of climate change.
The key takeaway here is to strengthen the individual’s capacity by giving everyone access to the highest forms of knowledge, ideas and best practices thereby building up their capacity to adapt and prosper on their own, as a family and a community, in the context of climate change in action. Why should there be a limit to the discovery of traditions and insights in this time? In addition to this, a fundamental right to proper housing and legitimate land rights is a bargaining necessity in times of crisis to leverage equitable treatment by those responsible for the social and economic system. Land tenure is the legal regime in which land is owned by an individual, and here too the importance on equitable access to gaining ownership cannot be overstated.
Ultimately, the sincere exploration of each of these concepts is enough to destabilize the monopoly capitalism has on policymaking. The first step to action is perceiving the possibility of acting. It is a process that is built up through knowledge, understanding and eventually wisdom. Guided by each individual’s judgement, the depth of solutions at our disposal will surely increase and meet their match, whether that’s in the classroom, the boardroom or in the highest courts of our nations. Simply taking the time to ask yourself, “Is this as good as it gets?” is an exercise that can lead more power to the people’s ability to change the world. I will end by rephrasing this question:
What areas of your life have you felt deprived of? Why not review the Sustainable Development Goals and challenge your community to find room for improvement?
Sources: - Friedman, Milton, “Capitalism and Freedom”, Preface (1982 edition)-Klein, Naomi, Coronavirus Capitalism and how to beat it-Federici, Silvia, Re-Enchanting the World, 2019-49th St. Gallen Symposium, Topic Paper, 2018- Craig, William, “These 5 Company Characteristics Are Linked To A Stronger Growth Mindset”