Capitalism versus the end of the world

“Our choice comes down to this,” George Monbiot concluded in the Guardian newspaper last month. “Do we stop life to allow capitalism to continue, or stop capitalism to allow life to continue?” Notwithstanding the strong suspicion that if a politician arose promising to stop capitalism he or she would be instantly denounced by the same newspaper as a far left anti-Semitic, misogynist demagogue, it’s an urgent question.

However, despite its urgency, I would suggest no satisfactory answer will be found until two further questions are also addressed. Firstly, what exactly is capitalism? Secondly, what role does capitalism – through its inevitable companion economic growth – play in material progress and poverty reduction?

Capital-ism involves the advancing of money to make more money, the generation (hopefully from the point of view of the capitalist) of a financial return that is invested again, barring some deductions for luxury consumption. That’s the semantic difference between capital and mere money. Thus, the system is inherently expansionary. This accumulation – capital advanced to make more money which is then invested again and so on ad infinitum – drives the process and is the beating heart of the capitalist system. John Maynard Keynes in his now famous 1930 essay The Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren explained the transformations in the “standard of life” since the 16^th century as the result of a joint process – technological improvements allied to the accumulation of capital.

The accumulation of capital occurs in spite of other strongly held desires that contradict its purposes – it has an imperative and logic of its own, to which other social needs, such as the preservation of a liveable climate or the wish to pursue, in Keynes’ phrase, life’s “non-economic purposes”, are sacrificed. This is not to suggest that many activities related to this accumulative process simply occur without anyone wanting them – the slave trade and slavery, colonialism, the seizure of common lands from the European peasantry will were all consciously willed and carried out. Nor does it mean that everyone benefits from capitalist accumulation or such benefits are evenly spread, geographically or socially. But imperialism, subjection, slavery and exploitation have existed throughout history and the last 400 years have been qualitatively unique in terms of the development of technology and the exploitation of material resources. The reason, I would suggest, is not just due to the thirst for profit but the pressure of accumulated funds.

What this constant build-up of capital does – one contemporary economist has described it as a ‘wall of money’ – is to create an incessant pressure for new outlets for investment. Such outlets might take the form of the extraction of raw materials, privatisation or debt-fuelled financial instruments. It is the hope of enlightened defenders of the system that this glut of capital can be directed towards socially , beneficial, low carbon forms, such as renewable energy or retrofitting the economy. But, as Monbiot notes, this seems a forlorn hope.

It is true that in recent decades investment has increasingly taken ‘fictional’, non-physical forms – financial instruments or property speculation – but, besides the fact that this leaves the system increasing crisis-prone, capital cannot migrate entirely to making money from rents, interests and royalties. It cannot become completely immaterial.

Keynes – erroneously – believed that this accumulative process could, in essence, be called to a halt once it had achieved its social purposes – once the technological developments it spurred had enabled a comfortable life for everyone and we were free to “value ends over means”. He imagined that by 2030 everyone would be working 3 hour days and 15 hour weeks. Monbiot appears to slip into the same delusion. “Like coal,” he writes, “capitalism has brought many benefits. But, like coal, it now causes more harm than good. Just as we have found means of generating useful energy that are better and less damaging than coal, so we need to find means of generating human wellbeing that are better and less damaging than capitalism.”

However, no such voluntary euthanasia on the part of the capitalist system is going to happen. Accumulation and expansion will go on inexorably and will increase hugely in scope thanks to the growth in funds requiring investment which themselves will generate profit demanding a financial return.

Thus if we are serious about finding a “means of generating human wellbeing that are better and less damaging than capitalism”, this accumulative process must be consciously snuffed out. And to do so requires confronting the immensely wealthy and powerful interests that have developed around this accumulative process and wish, whatever else they wish, that it continues and they remain wealthy and powerful. Moreover, we can’t comfort ourselves with the notion that it is just the 0.1% versus the rest of us. Hundreds of millions of people who aren’t fabulously wealthy also have a stake in the system’s perpetuation through stock market invested pensions funds. The capitalist system, we can be certain, will not go quietly into the night. It won’t depart with its hands aloft because our most sensitive minds have thought of something better.

The paradox of economic growth

The second problem we face relates to the fact that attempts to challenge capitalism often seem to make it stronger. This hinges on the role of economic growth. “Capitalism collapses without growth” says Monbiot, “yet perpetual growth on a finite planet leads inexorably to environmental calamity.” This is inescapable but at the same time partial. Economic growth, through being transmuted into social spending, money transfers and public provision, has resulted in huge reductions in poverty since the middle of the 20^th century. This is not to defend capitalism itself as some miraculous engine of prosperity. It has dispossessed as many people as it lifted out of poverty. But given strong social movements and/or sympathetic governments economic growth can, through taxation, be directed towards socially beneficial ends. The most glaring example is China. The Chinese economy has quadrupled in size since 1978 and per capita income grew fivefold between 1990 and 2010. Coincidentally, poverty has been slashed and the country is thought to be responsible for more than three quarters of world poverty reduction. This has all happened in the context of chronic and lethal air pollution and a major contribution towards global warming.

You might regard China as, until recently, peculiarly benighted as regards the environmental catastrophe we are heading towards. But a similar dilemma afflicts far more enlightened countries. In 2009 Bolivian president Evo Morales said climate change was driven by a western, capitalist “culture of death”. His government contrasted ‘living well’ (vivir bien) with a capitalist insistence on ‘living better’ (vivir mejor) and, in 2012 through the ‘Law of Mother Earth’, became the first state in history to grant rights to nature.

But at the same time, Bolivia’s great strides in poverty reduction – the country is the poorest in South America – have been achieved through redistributing the proceeds from, primarily, gas and oil extraction. Morales nationalised the hyrdocarbons firm YPFB, hiking royalties and taxes and increasing revenues from gas to over $2 billion from a mere $332 million. Over the past 13 years the Bolivian economy has tripled in size and now boasts the highest growth rate in the region – 4.7 per cent.

This is the background to a tripling of the minimum wage, conditional cash transfers to poor families and the creation of a free health service aiming to bring coverage to the 70% of the population who don’t have any. Poverty has been cut in half and the middle class has grown by a million people.

This is far from a painless process, however. As one one sympathetic assessment of the Morales years concludes:

The result is that Bolivia, with the world’s seventh largest tropical forests, now suffers the highest rate of deforestation in South America. In 2015, the MAS government promulgated a law permitting hydrocarbons and mining companies to explore up to 20 million hectares, much of it in protected areas. Large-scale hydro-electric projects, now in the planning stages, would further the goal of turning Bolivia into a regional energy hub. Soy production has roughly doubled since Morales took office ten years ago.

However, it would be the height of arrogance to, from a safe distance, condemn the Morales government for making the wrong choices and maximising the proceeds from economic growth, given its constricted options. Not least because it bears an uncanny resemblance to the way European countries attacked poverty and transformed the life chances of millions of their citizens in the decades after the Second World War.

And that is the nub of the problem. There will, in all likelihood, be many more Chinas and Bolivias in the coming years. Unless zero or minimal economic growth can deliver the same poverty-reducing benefits as taxing high economic growth, the temptation will always be to go for the latter, despite the fatal consequences.

The only way this can happen, I would surmise, is by systematically reducing the cost of basic goods and services – such as housing – to something approaching zero, so that poverty is abolished from the opposite direction so to speak. The pressing need of the vast majority of people to earn a livelihood from selling the labour – the foundation of economic growth – can be ameliorated through a generous basic income which would sever the link between work and existence. However, that basic income would still need funded somehow.

There is not an ‘off the shelf’ answer to this question. But we can’t pretend that it doesn’t exist. Though nothing is painless, if we are to ‘stop capitalism to allow life to exist’ indulging it to cream off the proceeds for the benefit of the poor must cease to be the only practical option.

Too successful for its own good. Should we save capitalism from itself?

There are many kinds of capitalism. Free market capitalism, which easily morphs into the dominance of corporations. Or social market capitalism, in which there is a larger role for the state and workers are represented on company boards. There is even state capitalism, in which everybody works for state enterprises, which pass themselves off as socialist, but exploit people just the same.

But now perhaps there are only two kinds of capitalism which count. Successful capitalism and capitalism which is too successful for its own good. The consequences of each are different but equally horrible in their own way.

Back in the roaring nineties successful capitalism was thought to be the only game in town. In Britain, Tony Blair’s New Labour exemplified the social democratic acceptance of capitalism. The “market” would hum along unmolested in the background and the government would skim off the tax revenue. Labour spokespeople waxed lyrical about the wealth-creating genius of the private sector and spent the proceeds on tax credits for the working poor, the National Health Service – health spending went up by 30 per cent – and relieving child poverty. It was, in essence, a deal.

But, said Left and green critics of capitalism, this was a myopic accommodation, trading short-term advantages for long-term disaster. Growth – the social ecologist Murray Bookchin said expecting capitalism not to grow was like expecting a lion to become vegetarian – might support enlarged public spending but would eventually make the planet unliveable.

In 2007, a British professor of engineering worked out that, based on an economy growing at three per cent a year, we would consume resources equivalent to all those we have consumed since humanity began as a species by 2040. In 33 years. I think the word you are grasping for is unsustainable.

As the writer Mark Fisher has said, successful capitalism was based on a fantasy: “A presupposition that resources are infinite, that the earth itself is merely a husk which capital can at a certain point slough off like a used skin, and that any problem can be solved by the market”.

To believe in successful capitalism you had to stick your index fingers in your ears and sing “la, la, la” very loudly. But both celebrators and critics agreed that capitalism worked.

Oh shit

But just as capitalism was swaggering around the globe, assured in its invincibility, disaster struck.

The global economic meltdown happened, the worst economic contraction since the Great Depression. $14.5 trillion of value was wiped from global companies.

The former masters of the universe, who meet at Davos, now speak of a “dystopian future” destroying the gains of globalization.“For the first time in generations, many people no longer believe that their children will grow up to enjoy a higher standard of living than theirs,” they warn.

Something had gone badly wrong.

The conventional explanation was that investment banks were too reckless, financial speculation overreached itself and the economy became dangerously skewed. But, in truth, capitalism had become too successful for its own good.

In the US, where the crisis was hatched, wages had stagnated since the mid-70s, while productivity – worker ouput that the employer benefits from – raced ahead. The result was not only spiralling inequality (the US was actually more equal than many western European countries in early ‘70s) and burgeoning corporate profits, but an orgy of personal borrowing so that consumption could be maintained despite the fact that earnings weren’t going up.

A cursory look at recent US economic history shows a series of bubbles. A massive stock market crash struck in 2000. The price of shares is dependent on the expectation of future corporate profits so crashes occur when there is a realisation of total over-optimism about profits. The crash was stopped from turning into a recession by reducing interest rates to below the rate of inflation for three years. Borrowing doubled – the house price and house building bubble ensued – but when that burst so spectacularly in 2007 there were no more bubbles left. Reality – the reality of stagnating earnings – could be evaded no longer.

A dusty old critique of capitalism suddenly became remarkably persuasive. That held that capitalism was inherently self-destructive. Each employer tries to keep wages, which are just another cost, as low as possible. But if they are too successful in that endeavour, the same workers with the low wages won’t be able to play their other vital role in capitalism, that of consumers of goods. Economic health depends upon the employer impulse to keep wages down being frustrated by another countervailing power. Capitalism can be too successful for its own good.

Flatliners

Worryingly for economic health, the US capacity for stagnating earnings has proved a very effective export. In the UK, earnings grew strongly throughout the ’80s and ‘90s but have flat-lined since 2003, four years before the onset of the ‘great recession’. Worker productivity, meanwhile, has kept on steaming ahead. Post-downturn wages rises in Britain are currently half the rate of inflation. Average wages are forecast to be no higher in 2015 than they were in 2001. France and Germany have followed a similar trajectory. Researchers describe an acute “decoupling”of earnings from growth.

The UK Resolution Foundation, which has produced a series of reports on living standards, worries that a return to growth won’t necessarily mean rising wages. Stagnating earnings also ensure burgeoning inequality (yes, it can get worse).

But there is another larger, elephant in the room, problem. The US experience demonstrates that you can’t, to use the economists’ elegant term, “decouple” growth from earnings forever, without eventually destroying growth as well (in industrialised, western countries at least, the experience of developing, exporting countries like India seems to be different). Earnings are purchasing power, in economics-speak ‘demand’, and growth cannot survive indefinitely without purchasing power.

The economic vista in front of us is that of a tsunami of bank debt inexorably making its way to shore. At the same time, earnings power which could lift countries out of recession, is exhausted. The level of personal borrowing is huge and, as we have seen, earnings stagnated or declined even before the recession.

That last factor cannot be wished away, or undone by governments even if they were inclined to. The reasons for stagnating earnings are analysed by a Resolution Foundation report. Technological change has obviated the need for low-skilled workers, firms have given precedence to share dividends over the pay of ordinary workers, outsourcing has increased, and the bargaining position of workers has been diluted. None of these factors will be reversed given current trends and the balance of power politically and economically.

The globe stops warming

It doesn’t have to be this way, you cry. And you’d be right. The Resolution Foundation report, Painful Separation, finds that in some European countries, namely Finland, Sweden and Denmark, there has been only mild divergence between economic growth and median pay. It is no accident that in Scandinavian countries, they say, “Recession? What recession?”

They haven’t killed the goose that lays the golden egg. They, if it isn’t stretching the metaphor too far, nurture their goose. They have effective countervailing powers like strong trade unions. They haven’t left successful capitalism behind. But there is a catch.

Amid all the deleterious social effects of the great recession – the homelessness, the riots, the suicides, the divorces – there was one undoubtedly progressive, though unintended, result. The sudden drop in economic activity achieved something international protocols and protesters invading airport runways had failed to. The rate of global warming was arrested. For only the fourth time in 50 years, carbon emissions fell.

It is clear that the kind of capitalism that Anglo-Saxon societies have been living through for the past 30 years is an ineffective form of capitalism. Growth rates have been unimpressive, financial crises have become more frequent and earnings have been held down. Too much power has been given to or taken by corporations and the rich. Capitalism has become too successful for its own good.

The South Korean economist, Ha-Joon Chang, in his book 23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism, argues convincingly that what we call “free market economics” has been shown to fail spectacularly. He puts the case for more assertive government control, different forms of ownership, the outlawing of financial products like derivatives, and the rebalancing of the economy away from finance and into the long-term production of manufactured goods. Capitalism can work if the harnesses are placed back on and it is guided in the public interest.

In other words, a return to successful capitalism, a capitalism that is in rude health. Chang eulogises the “miraculous” performance of South Korea in the ‘80s and ‘90s, which grew at an average of six per cent year. China today, he says, illustrates what can be done if free market prescriptions aren’t followed.

The problem isn’t the economic reasoning. The problem is that the world, ecologically, cannot cope with the replication of the Chinese or South Korean economic success stories. If earnings in the US had continued to track GDP growth, as they had done from 1945 to 1973, the average household would have earned $80,000 a year, not $50,000 as they in fact do. Even accounting for the spike in borrowing, consumption has been suppressed in US as capitalism has become too successful for its own good. It is revealing that Chang mentions the word “environment” just once in his entire book.

Chang, like John Maynard Keynes seventy years ago, wants to save capitalism from itself. 

Post-capitalism

But the truth is that neither successful capitalism, nor capitalism that is too successful for its own good, presents a remotely desirable prospect.

The latter leads, in Ann Pettifor’s words, to “dramatically higher levels of unemployment, the loss of savings, home foreclosures, bankruptcies, emigration, suicides, divorce, social unrest and political upheaval – to name but a few of the consequences.”  The former provides a swifter route to the dystopian future of global warming.

Awareness of the awful consequences of both alternatives leads to the realisation that the only rational option left is some form of post-capitalism. It doesn’t mean, in the caricature of one British government minister, everyone running around in Maoist boiler suits, but it does entail an end to the growth fetish and ensuring a secure standard of living for everyone. What “post-capitalism” is like in detail is what we should be concentrating on now.