The world we live in today is a result of a very strong “development complex” where economy and markets, energy and other technologies, culture and many other things give positive, affirmative, feed back to each other. In early stages of development of a system, positive feed back is mostly a strength, it means the system is dynamic and it allows it to expand, just as global capitalism has done over a period of about 200 years. It has expanded both in geographic extent from its European origin to enclose the human societies on the whole planet. It has also expanded into larger shares of nature as well as deeper into human societies.
In the end, however, systems with mostly positive feed back will sooner or later get negative, correcting and regulating, feedback. Global warming can in this perspective be seen as negative feedback to the fossil fuel economy, and migration backlash as negative feed back to globalization. Meanwhile, some of the positive feed back is losing steam. The marked slowdown of economic growth in the mature capitalist economies, the plateauing of fossil fuel extraction and the rapidly falling birth rates are three indicators of that.
Given that the system seems to need growth, capital accumulation and profits to thrive, it is quite likely that capitalism can’t survive a transformation to a no-growth economy. The whole system might collapse or it will have to change so much that it is no longer the same system. Some think that there is little we can do about an imminent collapse of the system; the only thing that makes sense is to accept, adjust and adapt on an individual level. I am not, yet, in that camp even if I can’t eliminate that they are correct. I am a pessimist when it comes to the current system’s ability to self-correct by its own mechanisms, but I am an optimist when it comes to humanity’s abilities to find new ways of organizing itself. It is therefore, appropriate and pertinent, to think about how such a change could look like and why it should look in a certain way.
Restoring the link to the land
One challenge is to create a human culture and material reality which is based on a convivial relationship with the rest of the living. For me, the most logical place to do this is by re-building local communities and their relationship to a landscape. I believe we learn a lot through caring for a place by actual work in the land. Through that, we will develop a more living relationship than by looking at, no matter how compelling, documentaries by David Attenborough. That link to the land is also the reason for why most (perhaps all, what do I know?) indigenous cultures have a more humble and reasonable relationship to the rest of nature. Interestingly, this separation of labor and land (humans and nature) is also what Marx identified as the basis for the original accumulation of capital, the impetus of capitalism.
Mind, body and hand
In the social and personal practices of daily life we perpetuate or confirm the prevailing norms. The expression ”Be the change” is mostly attributed the Mahatma Gahndi, even if he, as far as I can understand, never used that exact expression. Some interpret this so that you need to change your ”inner self”, i.e. mind, attitude and values in order to change the world. While I agree on this I also think there is a missing link between the idealistic and materialistic approach to change, between individual and society.
The practices of daily life are the link between the body and the mind, between the idealistic and materialistic approach to change, between individual and society.
That is in the practices we all perform day by day in our relationships to other humans, to the natural world, at work etc., often sub-consciously. Gandhi himself was walking the talk when he dressed in a rough homespun khadi cotton robe or when he orchestrated the salt march to extract salt from the sea as a way to challenge the British monopolies. These were not just symbols, but practices that contained and amplified the message. Such practices also change the minds of the persons involved in them.
Free from the market imperatives
Increasing self- provisioning by individuals, households and communities takes chunks of our lives out of the market. It changes the culture and mindset of people as well as inspires to new forms of self-management and democracy. Notably, it is counterproductive to strive for individual or community self-sufficiency in all aspects of life. It is not at all realistic as even a rudimentary human civilization will include some dependencies and exchange between various communities be it of metals, culture, knowledge, seeds, medicinal plants or spices. It is also not desirable as a friendly cooperation between groups is part of being human and it enriches our lives. The point is not autarchy, but liberation from the imperatives of markets.
Workless, earn less, produce less and consume less
For some strange reason the call for reducing consumption seems to be much more socially acceptable than a call to produce less, work less and earn less money. But they are all part of the same. All that is produced will be consumed or wasted. The call for less consumption is built on the myth that it is the consumer that drives the capitalist market economy, while in reality markets are mostly driven by producers and capital. If we really want to challenge the overconsumption of humanity we need to start with production, and in general produce less (of course this is in aggregate, there might well be things that we should produce more of). This can be accomplished by working less or working less efficiently (i.e. more manual work). In either case it also mean that you will earn less and therefore also consume less (this is of course also in aggregate, there are certainly people that would need to consume more).
The strategies listed above fits nicely with each other and will give each other positive feed back. For instance, increasing self-sufficiency will at the same time lead to less consumption and less emissions as self-provisioning reduce the time available for salaried work and thereby shrink the economy and human demands on ecosystems. By strengthening the link to the land and moving more of human life out of the market, the capitalist grasp of everyday life is lost. If combined with a change of culture, as discussed in the previous article, there will be an even stronger transformative power. The strategies also have the advantage that they are to some extent independent of if global capitalism collapses, just wither or in some unforeseen way manages to transform itself.
Non-reformist reforms
These social practices can also be the basis for a wider political agenda. When designing political strategies for change, it is important to work with methods and means that in themselves embed the ends and goals. André Gorz, some sixty years ago, spoke about non-reformist reforms. “A non-reformist reform is determined not in terms of what can be, but what should be”, i.e. such reforms are based on the rejection of the prevailing paradigm and narratives, such as “globalization can’t stop”, “markets are the best instrument for ensuring a fair distribution”.
If you believe, like I do, that capitalism as a system is harmful, that food and agriculture should be commons and that humanity should leave more space to other species while at the same time be a responsible keystone species, then the short and medium term actions and political demands should contribute to the reality you desire. It is equally important not to strengthen the aspects of society which are harmful. Political demands that make downsizing and market decoupling easier fit into such a strategy.
