From the blog post "why transition, part 2":
"I want to argue here that the responses to the crisis...rely on, and presuppose the continuation of, the same logic as the one which brought about that crisis....There isn't so much a conspiracy at work (although some segments of the economic world are clearly pushing intentionally for measures which are designed to prevent deeper questioning and/or change) as there is a lack of vision.
"States were forced to invest or at least commit astronomical sums to bail out their commercial banking sector.... Rarely had such a massive transfer of public wealth into private hands -- and into the very hands which had initially caused the collapse -- taken place in such a short time.
"There seems to be no deep mutation of the banking sector on the horizon and within the mainstream circles making up the 'transnational capitalist class,' there is certainly no serious reflection on alternative modes of financing economic (including public) activities and/or on alternative ways of issuing money.
"Most people who lost their job were able to find a new one -- if at all -- only by accepting degraded working conditions or well-intentioned but often stigmatizing retraining and re-conversion trajectories, the underlying idea being that, in an economy completely geared to private profits and the growth imperative, worsening macroeconomic conditions require a more 'responsible' and 'flexible 'labor force.... The downward pressure on wages in the name of cost competitiveness...has tilted the balance of power towards the side of capital owners and movers.
"The logic of industrial and financial capitalism is, however, structurally incompatible with a wholesale overhaul towards renewable energy.... The rates of return which are being demanded on the markets, hence the growth rates that ave become mandatory at the macroeconomic level if the system is to go on churning out more goods with higher productivity, hence the extent of the required mobility of goods and persons, are simply too large for a renewable-energy economy.
"One could call it 'crisis capitalism' [recall Naomi Klein] with the idea that many of the key private and public actors in the system are attempting to jump-start the same old engine after having replaced some defective parts with newer, almost identically-shaped ones
"We need a new vision as well as new framework conditions."
From "why transition, part 3:1":
"The previous post ended with a call for replacing blind evolution (which has driven the genesis and succession of socioeconomic systems up to today) with conscious evolution. This is not some hazy new-age idea, although the expression 'conscious evolution' has been used in hazy new-age contexts, too. The recent history of the developed world, and in particular the emergence of social democracy between the two World Wars and especially after WWII, has shown quite clearly that we have reached a new stage -- a stage where the conscious design of mechanisms permitting free emergence has taken over from the older notion of Adam Smith's 'invisible hand.' Smith's vision involved the unconscious and un-designed emergence of mechanisms (e.g., the market) which allow you to realize your freedom if you're lucky enough to come out on the right side of those mechanisms. We need something more.
"Social democracy has been a first step in the direction of making the invisible hand more deliberate. I don't intend to argue that we should roll back those positive steps. Instead, we should push forward. The industrial-financial-capitalist version of social democracy which we are currently presented with as 'the' embodiment of a modern, progressive economy is actually just an initial stage of social democracy -- not its final achievement.
"I am not -- I repeat: not -- going to argue for centralized planning or any other authoritarian device. The transition we need is as far removed from any sort of crypto-Soviet model as you could possibly want.... It has many libertarian features and it emphasizes bottom-up decision-making as well as decentralized governance. We can't avoid top-down decisions and measures, but they have to be designed in such a way that they very quickly, by the very nature of their design, hand over power and energy to bottom-up processes -- indeed, that they actually create such bottom-up processes where they don't yet exist.... Needless to say, the current state of capitalist social democracy isn't in line with this requirement.
"The problem isn't trade per se -- not at all. Trading is a vital, and often enjoyable, part of economic life. Local market squares as well as shopping streets are among the richest places in terms of human interactions and enjoyment of life. The problem is the political-economy option we have taken, and inscribed between the lines of our macro-rules such as those of the WTO, of viewing any and all trade as potentially beneficial and not questionable as to the possibly perverse effects of excess mobility and of export-led 'development.'
"The wedge between self-sufficiency and relocalization is called subsidiarity. It means, quite simply, that political and economic decisions ought to be made at the level that is most relevant given the underlying issues. In this case, it means that whatever can be produced at level n should not be imported from any place located at a distance on level n+1.
"What I am advocating is not a vision of extreme localism. The relevant regions have to be large enough so that a significant division of labor can occur in them, so that a large number of goods and services can be forthcoming with the help of local talents, and so that economic activity is lively and vibrant, including the development of local 'short circuits' and local 'soft' transport options. The non-local, 'hard' transport options -- such as road or air traffic, which will still involve the use of fossil fuels for quite some time -- need to be reserved as much as possible for (a) whatever cross-border trade still needs to be carried out (and that may quite a lot, especially in the early phases of the transition) and (b) what George Monbiot, in his jarring book Heat, has ironically called "love miles": the travel of persons for the sake of family, affection, love, or other human bonds.
"A crucial component of the transition has to be the deepening of decentralized, participatory, bottom-up decision processes that can be summarized under the heading of 'participatory economics'....The basic idea of participatory decision-making is that nested popular assemblies send 'up' to level n+1 data about level-n consumption, work, and production plans, the data get aggregated and sent 'up' to level n+2, and so on.
"Total regional self-sufficiency is illusory...what we really need is a multi-layered governance structure which allows various coordination agencies at the municipal, regional, national, and international level.... Neither central planning nor the competitive market are able to perform the complex qualitative-cum-quantitative tasks that democratic coordination can. And just as democratic coordination needs nested decision-making that goes all the way down to small localities...by the same token it needs national and supra-national decision-making instances as well. Democratic (and possibly participatory) decision-making all the way down, as it were, but also all the way up."
One immediate problem I see with the last statement is that we're going to invest in alternatives with "the proceeds of the resulting taxation of private profits." WTF? Does he not realize that the likes of GE don't pay any corporate taxes but in fact rather get billions of dollars in rebates instead? And said rebates are because of supposed research into alternative energy when if fact they use the research to sabotage such projects, insuring they never get off the ground.* The current tax structure penalizes the rest of us while letting the possible big revenue generators off the hook. So where is the money going to come from to fund alternatives again? Not from the likes of companies that don't want to see such alternatives ever happen.
* Recall his statement above: "The logic of industrial and financial capitalism is, however, structurally incompatible with a wholesale overhaul towards renewable energy."
"In order to effectively organize a ‘pluri-economic’ society, we certainly will need certain particular, top-down, across-the-board framework conditions to be put in place. The framework conditions we will need in order to get a genuine transition off the ground are not quite the same as the ‘mono-economic’ conditions ruling today's capitalist social democracies….this means that the mechanisms of both parliamentary and participatory democracy have to be monitored and scrutinized by transition-oriented citizens' organizations. So in the end, it all comes down to how we are going to generate sufficient awareness of the requirements of transition in the population at large -- and that, regardless of how much one might be attracted to bottom-up perspectives, is a top-down issue….the top-down decisions instigating changes in framework conditions are bound to flow from bottom-up activism!"
First off I appreciate his recognition of the top-down framework imposition, which I noted earlier. I also appreciate citizen political activism and do what I can on this front, partly by generating these online discussions to hopefully motivate political involvement. But it still seems more than a bit naive to me to think that the likes of citizen activists can generate anywhere near the political influence that giant money from corporations can, especially since the Supreme Court has given such corps free-reign on spending for such purposes. See for example Maddow's recent clip on this.*
* The irony of the clip is that the commercial lead-in is by Exxon...
From section 3:3:
"So there is clearly a libertarian flavor to my vision here. I think libertarianism, understood in the right way -- which essentially means non-right-wing libertarianism -- is a major resource for progressives. I have always been struck by how right-wing libertarians are deeply correct when they emphasize that a free society is one where initiatives emerge from the bottom up, made possible by a constitution and legal and social rules which liberate people's creativity and inspiration, and how they then blow it by equating freedom and creativity with the latitudes offered by the capitalist, private-profit accumulation system. Much worse than the right-wing libertarian thinkers (such as Hayek or, more recently, Nozick) are the neoconservative pundits and their political partners, who systematically collapse the free society, the market economy, and the logic of capitalism into one big, indistinct blob."
This reminds me of the discussion in the thread on the political compass discussing the dual dichotomy of liberal/conservative authoritarian/libertarian. And how Chomsky identified with liberal socialist libertarianism. Also recall here where Chomsky saw the original invisible hand jobber, Adam Smith, as coming from that same tradition.
From section 4:1:
"Thanks to the market's automatic mechanisms (and provided all resources are private property), 'green capitalism' will supposedly generate productivity increases in 'clean' sectors, which will usher in a new era of 'green growth'.... This purely market-based vision of green growth has been challenged by many social democrats who are skeptical of the market's ability to induce, on its own, the required reorientations (a) quickly enough and (b) in an equitable fashion.... We need ecological priorities to be integrated into prices, in particular through taxation schemes that force polluters to pay the full and complete price for their long-run impact on the environment.
"In a nutshell, according to many skeptics of the free market, green growth needs to be decoupled from mere green capitalism and has to be integrated into a much more demanding 'green social democracy.' It is up to the State, not the market, to guarantee the conditions of economic growth in such a way that, though R&D and through re-orientations prompted by the change in the structure of prices, investment and trade decisions fully integrate the economic reality of resource scarcity and the political imperative of doing more than maximize short-run financial surpluses. But can a social democracy that remains anchored in capitalist wealth creation -- albeit, now, 'green' wealth -- actually deliver on this ambition? I doubt it.
"Free-market green capitalism postulates that human mentality need not change. More precisely, it postulates that it should not change: In the eyes of free-market defenders of green capitalism, the condition for market self-regulation to work optimally -- in the form of the proverbial invisible hand -- is that the timber of humanity remain adequately crooked.... What matters ultimately is that the growth imperative, as a structural and 'genetic' necessity of capitalist social democracy, stop being seen as the foremost imperative guiding political decisions. But this, of course, means that the hegemony of capitalistic bottom lines has to be broken down .
"Questioning the growth imperative in the name of a general reduction in 'toxic economic emissions' is very much akin to questioning the industrial practices of the day in the name of reducing toxic gas emissions. Toxic economic emissions include the alienating effects of consumerism on consumers as well as on workers, the alienating effects of productivism on workers and on managers, and the culturally destructive effects of growth-driven world trade."
In the last post we can see that green capitalism is a step in the right direction but of itself is not nearly enough. The first reason is its adherence to private property. He doesn't explore this item above but it's a key factor. The green commons needs to be owned by the commons, not by private capital owners. Hence objection (b) that such capitalism will not be equitable with private profit as the bottom line. I appreciate that he agrees that green growth needs to separated from the capital market, that it is a State responsibility, since the State ideally is "the people." (That it isn't really is another story.)
I also appreciate that he recognizes that green capitalism, while maybe having multiple bottom lines, still doesn't require a fundamental change in capitalist structure, an assumption of the kennilingus capitalists. And that such structure at root maintains "the alienating effects of productivism on workers" when they have no ownership and control over their workplace while being worked to the bone in the name of profitable "productivity." The same dominating and hierarchical management structures remain in place where the worker is seen as just another mechanistic cog in the financial equation of, and when used up by overwork and stress at the disposal of, the capital owners. Green capitalism being no exception but rather more insidious, since it hides behind the facade of really, really caring about the planet (but no so much its workforce).