accumulation, treating both the workforce and the natural environment as mere inputs” . This is, however, at odds with the systemic workings of capitalist production.
A “green capitalism” would mean curbing carbon emissions and promoting biodiversity, at the expense of growth. Green capitalism necessarily involves cutting back, but the dynamics of the capitalist mode of production necessitate a “pushing onwards.” In his book Green Capitalism: the God that Failed, Richard Smith explains that “ecologically suicidal growth is built into the nature of any conceivable capitalism. This means … that the project of a steady-state capitalism is impossible and a distraction” . In particular, “under capitalism, the whole point of using resources efficiently is just to use the saved resources to produce even more commodities, to accelerate the conversion of even more natural resources into products.” This cannot be avoided under capitalism without causing economic collapse. “Insatiable consumerism is an everyday requirement of capitalist reproduction… No overconsumption, no growth, no jobs” . Consider that “more than two-thirds of market sales, and therefore most jobs, depend on direct sales to consumers while most of the rest of the economy, including the infrastructure and military is dedicated to propping up this consumerist ‘American way of life’” .
Capital’s need to grow is the logical outcome of accumulation. The objective limits of capital are determined, in the short run, by saturation of the market and, in the long run, by exhaustion of resources. When its productive potential is stymied, it turns to financial speculation, which only increases the gulf between the capitalist class and the rest of the species. Even capital that does not directly destroy resources therefore contributes to – and is dependent on -environmental degradation. Smith puts it this way: “Consumerism and overconsumption are not ‘disposable’ and cannot be exorcised because they are not just ‘cultural’ or ‘habitual.’ They are built into capitalism and indispensable for the day-to-day reproduction of corporate producers in a competitive market system in which capitalists, workers, consumers and governments alike are all dependent upon an endless cycle of perpetually increasing consumption to maintain profits, jobs, and tax revenues…” .
Even smaller, ecologically-minded businesses, in large part freed from the rapacious need to imperialize, cannot become green to the extent that is necessary. The scope of such practices is likely to be severely limited by market pressures. The aspect of local self-sufficiency is most widely seen in the food-services sector, especially in farmers’ markets, which have experienced a notable resurgence in recent years in industrialized countries. This corresponds more to what Marx called “simple commodity production,” however, than to capitalist enterprise . Agribusiness allows residual space for it, but at the same time undercuts it through economies of scale facilitated by technologies of food processing and storage; political clout, resulting in subsidies; and reliance on a typically migrant workforce that receives less than a living wage. Because of the resulting cost differences (as well as inconveniences of access), patronage of farmers’ markets is likely to remain primarily a political choice until much more is done to offset the artificial competitive edge enjoyed by the food-industrial complex.
Big capital will always crowd out, absorb, and otherwise overtake small capital. While noble, smaller “green capitalist” businesses are simply incapable of bringing about the systemic change necessary to mitigate the impact of the ecological crisis.
We can see that capitalism is not the answer, but is Marxism? Many activists argue that Karl Marx had an overly positive view of industrialisation and saw nature as an unlimited source to be exploited . Contrary to this claim, consciousness about and struggle for the environment is nothing new for Marxists. In fact, Marx was a pioneer in analysing and criticising the destructive eff