Panel 9: Future Polities/Economies
THE WORLD IN 2050: CREATING/IMAGINING JUST CLIMATE FUTURES
A NEARLY CARBON-NEUTRAL CONFERENCE
Panel 9: Future Polities/Economies
A View from the Future: Climate, Capitalism, Existentialism
Brad Hornick, Simon Frasier University
Envisioning radical changes forced upon us by climatic tipping points in coming years, this talk introduces the concept of a massive ecosocialist revolution. The presenter will discuss what such a transition would entail, and what it means for both humanity and the planet (more).
Ecoswaraj or Radical Ecological Democracy: Transformative Pathways in 2050
Ashish Kothari, Kalpavriksh & ICCA Consortium
This talk explores transformative frameworks for a sustainable and equitable future, going beyond symptomatic solutions such as ‘green growth’. It explores one such framework–Radical Ecological Democracy,–and the principals that can be derived from it moving forward to the year 2050 (more).
The Power Equation and Climate Justice in 2050
Pallav Das, Kalpavriksh
This talk makes an inquiry of the evolution of power relations as capitalism progressed through its mercantile, industrial and finance incarnations, both, through colonial and post-colonial periods, and where it stands today. It then examines the path of alternative economic development situated in the egalitarian dissemination of power, being crafted by popular movements, indigenous peoples, and initiatives of systemic change, which could lead us to a new era of climate justice in 2050 (more).
The End of Private Property
Michael Gasser, System Change not Climate Change & Michelle Glowa, California Institute for Integral Studies
This talk illustrates the dangers our current system of private property hold for the planet. The presenter will examine contemporary efforts to alter how we view the ‘right’ to property, and what it would take to abolish private property altogether (more).
Have questions or comments? Feel free to take part in the Q&A!
Before posting, you must first register. Note that questions and comments can be intended for individual speakers, the entire panel, or anyone who has posted to the Q&A. Respond directly to a particular question/comment by way of the little “reply” below it. The vertical threadlike lines are there to make it easier to see which part of the discussion (i.e. “thread”) you are taking up. You can choose to be notified via email (see below) whenever a question, answer, or comment is posted to this particular Q&A. Because the email notification will contain the new comment in its entirety, you can both follow the discussion as it is unfolding, as well as decide whether you would like to step in at any point. You can choose to receive email notifications for as many of the conference Q&A sessions as you like, as well as stop notifications at any time. Because the Q&A sessions will close at the end of the conference, all email notifications will also end at this time. Although only registered conference participants can pose questions and make comments, Q&A sessions are visible to the public and will remain so after the conference has ended, as we hope that they will become cited resources.
Hello folks, my presentation on Radical Ecological Democracy is necessarily a bit cryptic, but is based on dozens of grassroots initiatives (of which I mention only 2). I’d love to get comments on the framework of 5 interlocking circles (ecological resilience, direct political democracy, economic democracy, social justice, and cultural/knowledge diversity) that are to my mind elements of a sustainable and equitable world; and these in turn based on a set of ethical values and principles that could unite the thousands of diverse pathways that people around the world are exploring for a better future.
Hi again, Ashish. I thought I’d reply up here instead of in the thread below because the conversation is about your presentation as much as about ours. I agree with you on the what is good and what is bad about localism. The trouble is that, as it is playing out in the US (and maybe elsewhere), it often has an apolitical flavor, where people avoid thinking about how to *take power* at the local level so they can realize the economic and political democracy you (and we) champion. This was (is?) true for the Transitions Towns movement, for example, which avoids taking a stance on the issues that typically divide the right and left and politically goes no further than “building bridges to local government”. This is “alternatives” without “resistance”.
Agreed, Mike. There is considerable ‘depoliticisation’ of the civil society, and a lot of people getting diverted by superficial or fake solutions like carbon trading, technofixes, green economy etc. See in this context my comment on Bill McKibben’s talk in the Keynote speakers’ section; not that he is apolitical (not at all!), but I do think some fundamental structural aspects are not focused on enough.
A very inspiring talk, Ashish. You mention the well-being of animals in your talk, but would that include freedom from exploitation by humans? In other words, is your vision that a 2050 society will be a vegan one?
Ideally yes many or most people would be vegan or vegetarian; but I do not think this is something that should be imposed, plus for many indigenous and coastal communities, vegetarianism or veganism is hardly an option. While I personally believe in animal rights even of individual animals, what I have no hesitation advocating as a universal principle is the rights of species, such that even if there is a traditional activity or a deeply rooted cultural phenomenon that is threatening a species, I would urge the relevant community for it to be modified/stopped. I would not however go to a coastal community and urge them to stop eating fish! I hope the difference is clear? Many indigenous peoples have in fact been far more respectful of other species, even while hunting for food, than vegetarians or vegans in the global north who lead lifestyles that are otherwise enormously ecologically degrading (and therefore indirectly violating animal rights).
Radical Ecological Democracy is an attempt to minimize power differentials within human societies since such power differentials lead to abuse.
Similarly, there is a large power differential across species boundaries and abuse of this differential is leading to biodiversity loss, species extinctions, desertification, climate change, etc. Veganism is an attempt to address this power differential through moral considerations so that we can all enjoy a functioning ecosystem. Do you have any other means to limit the abuse that would occur since this power differential is inherent to our technological society? I don’t expect the animal kingdom to suddenly acquire nuclear weapons to mitigate this problem.
There are many ways to do this. For instance there are thousands of sites in the world where communities voluntarily conserve ecosystems and wildlife, helping protect and often revive populations of threatened species. They have not had to turn vegan to do this. As mentioned earlier, for me the most important thing is the survival and thriving of species diversity, and this can be achieved in many different ways. It is simply not possible for everyone to turn vegan (seriously, try living a vegan life on a small island, where the most important source of protein is fish). Like I also said, a vegan is also not necessarily any less destructive than a hunter, in fact most vegans in the western world would be far more destructive of the environment (and therefore showing far greater power inequalities over other animals) than many hunters amongst indigenous people in many parts of the world (where the hunting is for local sustenance, not for commercial use). So lets pl. not generalise our beliefs for the whole world. Everything else being equal, a vegan lifestyle is possibly the best, but it is impossible for ‘everything else’ to be equal given the incredible ecological, cultural and other diversity we have (and which has its own crucial values including environmental values).
If I’m alive at the ripe age of 90, I would be truly saddened if Animal Rights continues to be a festering, unresolved social justice issue in 2050. Just to apply the golden rule to consider the victim’s point of view in your cited example, imagine if fishes were to snag entire communities of human beings, men, women and children, drown them in the ocean and eat them. I certainly wouldn’t tolerate that…
Well actually non-human animals do kill humans all the time … except that in the societies I’m talking of, they don’t mind much, they think its part of the give-and-take of being part of nature. Its only in societies like ours, pretending to be animal-friendly, that we are horrified by a snake killing a person (or vice versa) … consider this, my friend, the vegans in Europe consume enormous amounts of soya products, and where does this come from, it comes from places like the Amazon where rainforests are coverted into soya plantations, effectively killing ALL the animals in them. Our being on this econference is taking up digital consumption that is partly dependent on mining in the Congo basin, including some incredibly rich rainforests. Why single out those who eat animals? we are all culpable. Being vegan is good, but it is (a) impossible for many human communities and (b) is a very partial response to the crisis of wildlife extinction especially if not accompanied by serious lifestyle changes, which I don’t see in most vegans who live in cities and belong to the consumer classes (which I presume you and I both do, given we are able to use this medium of communication). Anyway, good luck to your brand of animal rights, while I hope you can respect mine.
Indeed, there are very few societies that can claim to be truly isolated, with cell phones proliferating all over. If we are willing to import cell phones and satellite signals, then perhaps it is not a big stretch to periodically import some grains to tide over local shortages.
The problem with romanticizing human casualties of human-animal conflicts is that it is one short step away from romanticizing human sacrifices and other such violent cultural practices.
Thank you for engaging in this exchange.
Precisely my point … global trade whether it is in cellphone materials or grains or whatever, and all that it entails in terms of burning up energy and using materials, is one of the biggest causes of ecological destruction including climate change … a direct cause of incredible wildlife declines including species extinction. One fundamental pillar of a more sustainable world is economic localisation for basic needs, and this means you cannot dictate that everyone everywhere has to eat the same kind of food. I reiterate, it is far more ecologically wise (and better for animals as a whole) for islanders to eat fish than to have to import foodgrains, and it is far more damaging to animals that European vegans eat soybean tofu imported from S. America after having destroyed rainforests there to grow it. But I’ve made this point a few times, and since it does not seem to be getting anywhere, I won’t any more! And by the way, communities that tolerate casualties caused by animals they live amidst, are in no way romanticising them (nor am I), they simply accept this as part of living within nature. Every indigenous people on earth, and that’s the closest we can get to how humans originally lived, does do some hunting and/or fishing (but not for the market, and not in ways of human domination for as I said they also accept their own casualties). As for violent cultural practices, veganism that destroys rainforests (and displaces or disposses both non-human and human animals there) is pretty violent culture to me! A vegan that accesses locally, I fully respect. Most don’t. No more responses from me … perhaps if we meet one day, we can have a fuller face to face conversation! Meanwhile, I remain a wildlife rights activist, but of a different kind than what you’d like me to be, sorry.
I look forward to have a fuller face-to-face conversation but meanwhile, please allow me to clear up some misconceptions:
1. Veganism is a way of living where we seek to never deliberately hurt an innocent animal unnecessarily. As such, going vegan is a journey, not a destination. Therefore, vegan consumerism is an oxymoron and anyone who doesn’t exemplify that is not yet far along on the journey. It is unhelpful to criticize such travelers for their current position on their journey.
2. We are currently ensconced in a growth-oriented socioeconomic system that is based on consumption as an organizing value and competition as an organizing principle. Since vegan consumerism is an oxymoron, this system actively discourages veganism. But despite the widespread “Cowspiracy” among the elites in the current system, veganism is surging in North America and Europe, especially among the youth. This is a very encouraging sign that a monumental transformation in the prevailing consumer ethos is underway.
3. The destruction of the Amazon rainforest to grow soybeans is mainly to feed “livestock” in Europe and China. According to the IPCC (see AR5 WG3 Chapter 11), while humans consume 1.54 Giga tons (Gt) of dry matter biomass as food (1.36 Gt of which is plant-based), livestock consume 7.27 Gt, almost five times as much. Therefore, by cutting out the intermediate animal in the food system, vegans are making a rational response to the ecological destruction that is occurring on the planet. It is also a moral response to the unspeakable cruelty that the animals and the workers are made to deliberately suffer in the food system.
4. According to the Living Planet Index of the World Wildlife Fund, 52% of all vertebrate wildlife got destroyed between 1970 and 2010 at an exponentially accelerating pace. While the biomass of humans is currently 500 Million metric Tons (MT), the biomass of livestock is over 1000 MT and the biomass of wild vertebrates is less than 40 MT (no typo. please see, e.g., Anthony Barnoksy, PNAS 2008). Therefore, it is hard to conceive of a sustainable, alternate socioeconomic system that substitutes livestock consumption with the consumption of “local” wild animals. Hence, we’re working on an alternate socioeconomic system that is oriented towards human creativity, not growth, with compassion, not consumption, as its organizing value and collaboration, not competition, as its organizing principle. Creativity, compassion and collaboration are all infinitely sustainable characteristics, while growth, consumption and competition are blatantly unsustainable.
5. Since the current socioeconomic system depends on growth, there is tremendous propaganda in the system concerning protein consumption. The prevailing Recommended Daily Allowances are already overblown to promote that system. Please see, e.g., http://www.pcrm.org/health/diets/vegdiets/how-can-i-get-enough-protein-the-protein-myth
6. In my field work in Rajasthan and Orissa, 100% of the tribal women opted to accept solar torch lights that enabled them to avoid snake bites during their early morning forays into the forest, the so-called “give and take of nature.” It is normal for all life-forms to avoid suffering and death, if at all possible, and human beings are no exception.
Thank you once again for the opportunity to explore the local movement in some detail.
Dear Ashish,
Thanks for your really inspiring conference. I do not have any comment on the framework of 5 interlocking circles, it looks really revelent for me ! But I have a question : could you give me few examples of grassroots movements which mingle social justice, feminism, anti-imperialism etc. and struggle against climate change in India ? Maybe the ones which are the most inspiring for you. I work on climate justice movement in Europe but I do not know how the movement is in India. If you have any references, I will be also really interested.
Thanks for your attention,
Laurence
Thanks, Laurence. Could you pl. go to the following link, I have an article with lots of examples in it: http://www.vikalpsangam.org/article/the-search-for-radical-alternatives-key-elements-and-principles/#.WCNYTneZNE4. In general the website in which this is located also has many examples and some detailed case studies. Let me know if you need more details.
Hi everybody. Michelle and I look forward to your comments, in particular about how private property and commoning figure in visions for the communities you work with.
Hi Mike, one of the examples I mention in my presentation, the community of Mendha-Lekha in Maharashtra state of India, has in 2013 turned all its private agricultural land into the village commons. Quite remarkable. It used an old Indian law, hardly ever used, for this purpose, the Gramdan Act, which was brought in during the time of land reforms meant to redistribute land to the landless. The Act basically offered greater state assistance to villages that helped to common or redistribute lands in ways that benefited the landless or other poor.
Hi Ashish. First, I enjoyed your presentation very much (and didn’t find it “cryptic” at all!). Of course your vision overlaps a lot with ours, which is encouraging, to say the least. The example of Mendha-Lekha is quite inspiring, and now I’m eager to look into the other Indian examples on your website, as well as learn more about your framework. Going forward, I think we need ways of sharing these experiences among the communities themselves. This will involve clever use of technology, as well as translation (not only linguistic). Lots to think about…
Thanks, Mike. I heard your presentation too, and am in full agreement. I think the emphasis on both resistance and alternatives is absolutely spot on; for me resistance is very much part of the systemic or radical alternative movement, as it provides a powerful mirror to the dominant system, it gives us a bit more breathing space to explore the constructive alternatives, and it often reminds us that there are existing ways of living (such as many indigenous ones) that are already demonstrating resilience, sustainability, justice. Quick comment on ‘localism’, I agree that in its limited form it is inadequate (sometimes even dangerous if it is of the rightwing ‘nationalist’ variety!), but this is why many in Europe and elsewhere now talk of ‘open localism’ which is more inclusive of intercultural exchange, more in recognition of the local-global connections, etc. Nevertheless localisation of power at political (radical democracy) and economic (self-reliance for basic needs) levels as an essential part of the global struggle needs emphasis, I think. And yes to the need to share! (At the recent Degrowth conference in Budapest, I suggested a Global Alternatives Forum or Confluence (we have a process of this kind in India, and will soon expand it to South Asia hopefully). Not sure of its feasibility, but worth considering I think?
Hello Ashish, I look forward to learning more about Mendha-Lekha example. Are there any particular publications you’d recommend or should I just check out your website? And, yes, I completely agree that like the ‘open localism’ approach in many realms people are talking about ‘reflexive localism’ (Dupuis and Goodman) or placing localism in a multi-scalar strategy like municipal confederalism (Bookchin), and this has great hope! In our work with the garden and other food movement projects, I think Michael and I are committed to make sure these approaches stay central in the conversation.
Ashish, I’d like to know more about the ideas you proposed in Budapest and what already exists in this regard.
Hi Mike, on Mendha-Lekha there is quite a bit of material, pl. do a search on http://www.alternativesindia.org, but also if you send me a mail at chikikothari@gmail.com I can send you a detailed case study (which however pre-dates the recent decision of commoning they took).
On the Global Alternatives Confluence, no at the moment it is just that, an idea proposed at Budapest (and subsequently in a few other forums). There is interest in considering this amongst some circles but no serious discussion on possibilities has yet started. There is a discussion group called Radical Ecological Democracy on which I hope to discuss it soon … if you want I can put you on this list. thanks,
Hi Michelle and Michael,
I really enjoyed the way your talk places emphasis on commoning as alternative to market solutions for managing resources and the way you trouble the self-evidence of private property (…sure, the garden is a great project, but after all the land belongs to a private company). I have a couple of comments/questions:
1) Do you also see commoning as alternative to state based solutions for managing resources? In other words, do you see commoning as alternative to private AND public modes of governance?
2) There is a moment in your talk where you talk about the commons as “collective” form of ownership. While I appreciate the significance of a shift from contemporary regimes of private property to forms of collective property, I am more interested in thinking about the commons not in terms of collective ownership but as “common use” that does not entail appropriation. It would be interesting having a conversation about this.
3) Finally, your talk mentions the commons as both a return to pre-capitalist forms of living and as struggle for the riappropriation of that which has been taken away (land, food, but also collective intelligence and practices) that might open up post-capitalist futures. I agree with you about the second definition but I see problems in invoking the return to pre-capitalist forms of being-in-common. Can you talk about the relationship between these two ways to look at the commons?
Thank you!
Miriam Tola (from the Paths to Liberation panel)
Hi Miriam, while your qs. is to Michelle and Michael, I’d like to pitch in if I may. Briefly to your 3 qs:
1. I certainly think that where communities are asserting their rights to the commons, it is from both private and govt control. I like to think of ‘public’ as all of us, rather than as govt … in my presentation on this panel I propose that we think of the locus of decision-making in the community (recognising this is a contested and complex term), not in the govt (as in an elected state) nor in corporations/private entities. In many countries we see that communities are reclaiming territories and spaces from past appropriation by govts (colonial or independent).
2. I tend also to be uncomfortable about the term ownership, and would go more for what indigenous peoples say about ‘custodianship’, since, as they say, who are we to own nature? But this custodianship needs to have secure collective tenure to ensure that corporations and govts can’t (or will find it v. difficult) to grab the land without at least due process including prior informed consent.
3. I can’t speak for M&M, but for me a lot of what indigenous peoples (and other traditional local communities) have had and often still have, are pre-capitalist forms of the commons. In many ways there are commonalities of this with post-capitalist commoning (such as the basic principle of doing things for the collective good) but there may also be differences, e.g. in the form of decision-making institutions, or in how the relationship between the human community and the ‘land’ is viewed (one of these is what I point out in no. 2 above).
My two bits!
ashish
Hi Ashish,
Thanks for your comments! I see your point about reclaiming the “public” as all of us.
It is definitely important to produce nuanced analyses of the distinctions between private and public. So, for example, as someone who grew up in Europe and ended up getting a PhD in the US, I appreciate the differences between the kind of public education available to students in countries like Italy and France and the fundamentally privatized, highly segregated education system in the United States. While the former can be extremely dysfunctional, it is still committed –at least formally– to guarantee mass access throughout every level of education, including higher education. Yet, these systems are largely subject to state control, in this sense they are public but not common.
Your references to indigenous tenure and forms of pre-capitalist commons are also important. There are a couple of interesting things to point out here. First, I think you are right in suggesting that forms of pre-capitalist commons still exist in the present. My concern was mainly about thinking the “return’ to the commons in situations that have been deeply transformed by centuries of capitalist and colonial exploitation. In those cases, I think it is more interesting to think about the inventions of new forms of commoning, capable of entering in conversations with, for example, forms of indigenous commons, but profoundly different from them.
Second, I want to be cautious in conflating projects of commoning with indigenous claims to land. According to indigenous scholars such as Jodi Byrd, for example, the problem of reading colonialism as generalized theft of the commons and the global commons as generalized redistributive strategy is that it construes indigenous claims to sovereignty as regressive and
exclusionary. She places emphasis on the tensions between generalized projects of commoning and indigenous sovereignty. Similarly, Glen Coulthard talks about the danger of fetishization of the commons in radical circles. So for example, reclamation projects on the land or guerilla gardening projects in the United States are making commons in spaces that were taken away from indigenous people, yet often these layers of dispossession are not accounted for. In other words, there is a tension between claims to the commons and indigenous claims to sovereignty that needs to be carefully considered.
Dear Miriam, fully agree with you on your first point. We need to find ways of making possible the conversation across these forms of commoning, or other alternatives, especially facilitating people from within communities themselves to be able to dialogue with each other and build alliances. I also agree re. the need to distinguish between indigenous claims and commoning in general; this is partly what I hinted at by there being differences even as there are commonalities in various approaches. But I am not sure if the difference is between commons and other approach, but is rather between different kinds of commons; for the indigenous people what they are claiming rights to are commons for them, not global commons, whereas the deep seas or the atmosphere may be the latter. Different principles could apply to these. Collective tenure (rights and responsibilities, custodianship, etc) for the former are v. importantly located in the indigenous people (or other local community), whereas for the latter it is more general (and brings up a crucial qs. of what would be an appropriate governance structure for global commons, beyond the UN which is still nation-state dominated and hence inappropriate). Thanks for bringing out these important points.
Hi Pallav, good presentation (how did you get 25 minutes when we were all told 15? good subversion!). I think you need to develop the violence-power equation more in subsequent work. Tease out, for instance, different kinds of violence so that the Arendt equation can be clearer. For instance, we’ve had wars for centuries (millennia?), and tremendous kinds of violence of various kinds through the ages. I do know if the violence of slavery can be said to be a sign of power being shaky. Where I think the Arendt view holds is when the state turns against its own dissenting citizens, or against ‘outsiders’ who it feels threatened by, for in both of these it betrays the feeling of being vulnerable, or not in absolute control. More historical and contemporary work on this, building on Arendt, would be great. This could also help unravel further, what alternative power dynamics could/should look like.
Hi Ashish,
Thanks for your comments. It would, indeed, be exciting to further probe the power/violence relationship. Arendt is interesting because for her power rests on compliance, and violence enters the picture in case of non-compliance. But, once that happens the inherent stability of the equation comes into question. The use of violence cannot render stability back to the equation and, in fact, for Arendt its intensification ultimately destroys power itself. I find this analysis to be particularly pertinent in understanding the current trends among the global elite in framing climate change as a security issue rather than as an environmental and social-justice one. Nick Buxton and Ben Hayes (Trans National Institute) have brought this out remarkably astutely in their recently edited book, The Secured and the Dispossessed, where they analyze the securing of corporate and elite assets, extractive resources, agricultural land, controlling and preventing refugee migrations, increased militarization of police etc. as an anticipatory response to the impact of climate change. The militant projection of power and preparation for violent suppression of dissent and civil resistance is clearly evident in recent climate change and environment related protests: the Native American led struggle against the Dakota Pipeline project is the most recent example of that. Arendt is crucial in our attempt at understanding this unraveling of the power of capital and its rapid devolution into its essentially fundamental character signified by greed and exploitation.
I guess this has become a longer response than I had anticipated. (Just like my presentation, where I benefited from the indulgence of the virtual moderator). I would, however, welcome discussing further with you and the other participants of the conference the relationship between power, capital and climate change and the new world that we can work towards by challenging that equation.
Pallav
Hi there — VERY nice panel… The talk about private property (Gasser) is a reflection of a conceptual problem that the Indian presentations go beyond … The conceptual problem is not as Michael states a return “precapitalist” — it is better thought of as a move towards “post-capitalist” … our work with literally millions of people in the global South shows that people are already living in such soiceities. The present problem in North Dakota is an example of how one small area is producing a virtually world-wide solidarity movement — that the US government is incapable/unwiiling to recognize its own commitments and international frameworks — local action is not enough… N Dakota is a small case of large scale problems created by mining, ‘renewable’ energy etc … hopefully Glowa predictions of changing property relations is a possibility! — Id love to hear from you about our publications about latin America.
saludos
Hello David, Nice to see your remarks. We met briefly in DF in 2008 upon Margaret FitzSimmons recommendation. I just downloaded your “Construyendo mundos pos-capitalistas” article and look forward to getting into it.
Thanks for your comments, Professor Barkin. In my opinion, the post-capitalist scenario would definitely be influenced by the historical memory of the pre-capitalist experience of the human/nature relationship, as well as by its residual working evidence still available with the indigenous people, however mangled and disfigured it might be after all these years of struggle under capitalism. The jaded human psyche would need to reconnect with nature after years of strife against it. As my colleague, Ashish Kothari explains in his presentation some of the most meaningful challenges to the neoliberal hold on the human imagination are emerging from the people still connected to nature. Your own work in central- America bears that out. Moreover, the over-arching logic and trajectory of dialectical materialism would also propel the earth in that direction – towards degrowth, interconnectedness, self-restraint, collective decision making etc. Man would have to re-enter nature after, obviously, signing off on his destructive passions and hubris at the entrance. That would be a necessary step towards establishing an egalitarian construct of power.
Pallav