*Is Capitalism Sustainable?* pp 165 - 174: "For example, the use of pesticides in agriculture at first lowers, then ultimately increases, costs as pests become more chemical resistant and also as the chemicals poison the soil. Permanent-yield monoforests in Sweden were expected to keep costs down, but it turned out that the loss of biodiversity over the years has reduced the productivity of forest ecosystems and the size of the trees... As for the 'communal' conditions of production, new highways, designed to lower the costs of transportation and the commute to work tend to raise costs when they attract more traffic and create more congestion."
If we were to "green" the economy in various ways, such as subsidizing organic agriculture, banning cars in downtowns in favor of public transportation, and replacing destructive products with environmentally-friendly alternatives, etc., the result would be new opportunities for economic growth and long-term lowering of the costs of production. But since this would occur at the expense of short-term profit, the impetus has to come from the state. Unfortunately, "In liberal democratic states the normal political logic of pluralism and compromise prevents the development of overall environmental, urban, and social planning." Decisions are made according to the needs of fragmented "special interests," the most powerful of which are the very corporations that are resistant to anything that cuts into short-term profit. Though theoretically possible, the "chances of instituting a systematic 'capitalist solution' to the second contradiction are remote."
O'Connor suggests political agitation in pursuit of "radically reforming the economy, polity, and society." Ultimately this would result in the establishment of "ecological socialism." He doesn't address the question of what happens if we fail. What if accumulation marches on, and the ecological crisis continues worsening and eventually becomes acute? It's commonly believed that once we get to the point at which the viability of civilization is threatened, both consumers and capitalists will suddenly realize that our destructive way of life must change. We will experience a great transformation of consciousness. We will see that we're all part of the same "special interest" known as humanity, and the necessary greening will finally come about.
I think there's a more likely outcome of acute ecological crisis under capitalism. Back to O'Connor, on the first contradiction: "The main type of crisis inherent in capitalism, however, is a 'realization crisis.' Marxists regard capitalism as 'crisis-ridden.' But the system is also 'crisis-dependent' in the sense that economic crises force cost cutting, 'restructuring,' layoffs, and other changes that make the system more 'efficient,' that is, more profitable. Marx wrote that 'capital accumulates through crisis,' meaning that crises are occasions for the liquidation of some capitals, and also the appearance of new capitals and reorganization of old capitals, not to speak of the diffusion of new and more 'efficient' technology throughout the system, such as computerization."
Why couldn't the second contradiction be resolved in roughly the same manner? Except that, in this case, "liquidation" takes on a somewhat sinister meaning. Though the crisis is caused by the conflict between the needs of accumulation and the limits of ecology, in capitalist mythology, the problem is simple: Population. There's too many darned people out there! It's not that we'll have to send them all to the gas ovens or even sterilize them-- It's simply a matter of "restructuring." Draw a circle around the chosen few, and leave the rest to fend for themselves in environments that have been rendered virtually unlivable. With all our great strides in computerization and automation, most of the working class will be superfluous, so it's not as if they (we) will be missed. After the mass "layoffs," capital and its elite servants can resume business as usual.
Once more, "capital accumulates through crisis."
Ted