Home > WEA Books > Green Capitalism: The God that Failed

Green Capitalism: The God that Failed

Green Capitalism: The God that Failed

Richard Smith

Published 18 Mar 2015 by WEA Books, $10.00 This book is available to download in PDF, EPUB (for iPad etc.) and MOBI (for Kindle etc.)

This book deals with the prime threat to human life on earth: the tendency of global capitalist economic development to develop us to death, to drive us off the cliff to ecological collapse. It begins with a review of the origins of this economic dynamic in the transition to capitalism in England and Europe and with an analysis of the ecological implications of capitalist economics as revealed in the work of its founding theorist Adam Smith. I argue that, once installed, the requirements of reproduction under capitalism – the pressure of competition, the imperative need to innovate and develop the forces of production to beat the competition, the need to constantly grow production and expand the market and so on, induced an expansive logic that has driven economic development, and now overdevelopment, down to our day.

In successive chapters I explicate and criticize the two leading mainstream approaches to dealing with the ecological consequences of this overdevelopmental dynamic – décroisance or “degrowth,” and “green capitalism”. I show that the theorists and proponents of no-growth or de-growth like Herman Daly or Tim Jackson are correct in arguing that infinite economic growth is not possible on a finite planet but that they’re wrong to imagine that capitalism can be refashioned as a kind of “steady state” economy, let alone actually “degrow” without provoking economic collapse. There are further problems with this model, which I also investigate. I show that the theorists and proponents of “green capitalism” such as Paul Hawkin, Lester Brown and Frances Cairncross are wrong to think that tech miracles, “dematerialization,” new efficiencies, recycling and the like will permit us to growth the global economy more or less forever without consuming and polluting ourselves to death. I show that while we’re all better off with organic groceries, energy-efficient lightbulbs and appliances, recycling and the like, such developments do not fundamentally alter the eco-suicidal tendencies of capitalist development because infinite growth, even green growth, is just not possible on a finite planet. In the final chapters I argue that since capitalism can only drive us to ecological collapse, we have no choice but to try to cashier this system and replace it with an entirely different economy and mode of life based on minimizing not maximizing resource consumption, based on public ownership of most, though not all of the economy, on large-scale economic planning and international coordination, and on a global “contraction and convergence” between the North and the South around a lower but hopefully satisfactory level of material consumption for all the world’s peoples. Whether we can pull off such a transition is another question. We may very well fail to overthrow capitalism and replace it with a viable alternative. That may be our fate. But around the world, in thousands of locations, people are organizing and fighting against corporate power, against land grabs, against extreme extraction, against the incessant commodification of our lives. Here and there, as in Greece and China, ruling classes are on the defensive. All these fights have a common demand: bottom-up democracy, popular power. In this lies our best hope. This little book is intended as more ammunition for that fight.

About the author

Richard Smith has worked as a sailboat rigger, African expedition leader, carpenter-builder and briefly as a lecturer in history. He wrote his UCLA History Ph.D. thesis on the contradictions of market reform in China’s transition to capitalism (1989). He held postdoctoral appointments at the East-West Center in Honolulu and at Rutgers University New Brunswick and has published articles on the Chinese revolution, China’s road to capitalism, and capitalist development and China’s environment for Against the Current, New Left Review, the Ecologist, and Monthly Review and other journals. He has published articles on capitalism and the global ecological crisis in the Journal of Ecological Economics, Capitalism Nature Socialism, Real-World Economics Review, Truthout.org, Adbusters, and other media. He is presently completing a book on China’s communist-capitalism and ecological collapse.

  1. blocke
    March 19, 2015 at 9:02 am


    As an American who has lived in Germany for much of my life, I learned that a community does not have to be a slave to market economics and can be modern and efficient. I have watched and am watching the Germans phase out atomic power and introduce alternative sources of energy, in a serious way. It costs those living in Germany a lot for their energy needed, both individuals and companies, to thrive, and yet Germans do it. Don’t let the corporation dominate the community and Green Capitalism might have a chance. Haven’t read your book yet, but I hope you say something about that and don’t look at capitalism uniquely through the eyes of financialization and casino capitalism.

  2. graccibros
    March 19, 2015 at 3:26 pm

    Well, I think “reading” Germany correctly is one of the more difficult tasks for citizen and scholars alike, because while they are one of the leading green pioneers, their monetary and fiscal role vs. much of the Euro zone and especially the periphery hardly argue for an overall “progressivism” in economics. Windmills, solar, away from nuclear at home yes; they are also the leading edge producer of advanced automated electro-chemical-physical manufacturing systems which I don’t believe advance what they are doing at home – rather point in the direction of Richard Smith’s book outline here.

    Let me frame the dilemmas for the US audience a bit more explicitly. At the national level, we have full blown neoliberal “austerity” from the Republican Right vs. a slightly more compassionate version from the Democratic centrists, even factoring in Larry Summer’s turn to the left in his strange but interesting “Inclusive Prosperity” Commission report. But it is far short, in my opinion, in being a full blown Green New Deal, which is the best hope of progressive economics to both aim at Smith’s goals and try to reach the citizenry in a voting process. But it’s not on the table, as traditional growth still trumps the Green aspects.

    Then we have those forces represented by Gar Alperovitz, which on balance are walking away from the two party system for the more radical and at the same time far more indirect and muted slow transformation of economic-ecological institutions from the local, bottom up. Whether this is wise or merely psychologically more comfortable for tenured “radicals” like Alperovitz I don’t know, I reserve judgement. But it does allow a good part of the ecological left to escape grappling with the huge gaps in popular understanding of political economy, left to its interpreters in the two main parties. Alperovitz pays lip service to not letting reality deteriorate too far in the “mainstream” dynamics, but I don’t think that’s where his intellectual or moral energy goes: it goes remote to small scale new institution building.

    That worries me, and the question I would pose to author Smith here is whether his vision for an alternative can ever be framed up as something that a new or remade Democratic Party, or a third party could bring before voters for a decisive turn? I can’t quite see that possibility in what I’ve read from Summers laying the carpet for Hillary…I can’t imagine either by intellect or temperament meeting the author on a common plan.

    I live among very economically desperate average citizens in rural Maryland; we are trying to delay or block natural gas fracking, and our job would be easier if this traditionally resource extractive region could offer its good citizens a cleaner job creating alternative. I don’t see that happening without some type of focused regional Green New Deal “TVA,” but the intellectual steps necessary to get “there” are missing huge chunks of historical time and thinking. The Right’s rigid economic lock-box, on display in the current national Republican Budget, is the dominant economic thinking here. That’s the hurdle, Richard Smith, a high one for even the best runner.

  3. graccibros
    March 21, 2015 at 1:32 pm

    Just so there is no misunderstanding, by summoning up a Green New Deal Regional TVA for Western Maryland, we had better distinguish its role from the original one. The opposition to fracking in Western Maryland is coming from alternative ecological businesses, ecotourism, farm to table restaurants, wineries, and a hoped for alternative energy vision for the region. The damage from the old extractive coal regimes, underground and surface mining, has still to be healed, so there is an enormous amount of restorative work to be done. Missing is the low cost, green working capital to set more of this direction in motion, especially a regional alternative energy model. Damning rivers as in the old TVA is not, as far as I can see, in anyone’s game plan.

    It’s very difficult in thinking about what we wrote above, and the book at hand here, not to wonder how a population saturated in the ethos of competition gets to be more cooperative, because that’s the tension buried not only in the writings of economics profession, it still saturates the dialogue among elected officials, pitting one state against another in a race to the bottom and even different regions within the state. For those who want the most radical changes, like Gar Alperovitz, even when they are presented in low temperature emotional wrappings, this is the great difficulty. From sports to business to the arts, the competitive ethos is so pervasive that it overwhelms the ecological necessities which imply greater cooperation.

    • Ack Nice
      March 21, 2015 at 4:13 pm

      Hi, graccibros – i strongly suggest that Alfie Kohn has written THE book on this matter – I cannot recommend it highly enough – a George Catlin had this to say about it:

      No Contest: the case against competition

      A discussion by George Catlin of Alfie Kohn’s book, in which research debunks the myths perpetuating the ‘sacred cow’ of competition.
      “We need competition in order to survive.”
      “Life is boring without competition.”
      “It is competition that gives us meaning in life.”

      These words written by American college students capture a sentiment that runs through the heart of the USA and appears to be spreading throughout the world. To these students, competition is not simply something one does, it is the very essence of existence. When asked to imagine a world without competition, they can foresee only rising prices, declining productivity and a general collapse of the moral order. Some truly believe we would cease to exist were it not for competition.

      Alfie Kohn, author of No contest: the case against competition, disagrees completely. He argues that competition is essentially detrimental to every important aspect of human experience; our relationships, self-esteem, enjoyment of leisure, and even productivity would all be improved if we were to break out of the pattern of relentless competition. Far from being idealistic speculation, his position is anchored in hundreds of research studies and careful analysis of the primary domains of competitive interaction. For those who see themselves assisting in a transition to a less competitive world, Kohn’s book will be an invaluable resource.

      Beating others

      Kohn defines competition as any situation where one person’s success is dependent upon another’s failure. Put another way, in competition two or more parties are pursuing a goal that cannot be attained by all. He calls this ‘mutually exclusive goal attainment’ (MEGA).

      Kohn goes on to define two distinct types of competition. In ‘structural competition’ MEGA is an explicit, defining element in the nature of the interaction. For instance in a game of tennis there can be only one winner. The same is true of beauty contests, presidential elections, and wars. Everyone knows they are out to beat the others though the rules of engagement may vary considerably between events.

      Intentional competition’ is a state of mind, an individual’s competitiveness or his proclivity for besting others. Anyone can go to a party determined to establish him or herself as the most intelligent, the most attractive, etc. Similarly, in school, the work place, and on teams people can try to beat others whether or not anyone is formally keeping score and declaring winners and losers.

      One place where competition cannot exist, according to Kohn, is within oneself. Such striving to better one’s own standing is an individual, not interactive matter; it does not involve MEGA. Of course some people cannot imagine pushing themselves without the possibility of ‘winning’ or the threat of ‘losing’, but this by no means implies that all motivation is dependent upon competitive frameworks. Throughout history countless large and small accomplishments have been achieved simply out of an individual’s desire to do better without any thought of beating others. Such striving for mastery cannot be confused with competition.

      Four myths

      Kohn argues that the ‘sacred cow’ of competition stands on four mythological legs. The first of these is that competition is an innate fact of life. This myth has its basis in a fundamental misunderstanding of Darwin’s theory of natural selection. It is wrongly supposed that the phrase ‘survival of the fittest’ implies an eternal struggle among members of the species from which only the strongest (that is, most competitive) emerge victorious.

      Actually fitness in the biological sense refers only to the capacity to produce surviving offspring who in turn live to reproduce. When ‘survival of the fittest’ is understood in this light, it becomes clear that the tendency to cooperate contributes far more to fitness than any competitive inclination. Raising offspring for early animal-humanity was a difficult undertaking, and only those who could work effectively with others were likely to succeed. On the other hand, endangering one’s own life as well as the lives of one’s offspring through direct physical competition was a risky strategy at best, and those who were genetically predisposed in that direction are thought to have died off millions of years ago. Thus, if we have inherited any predisposition for intra-species behavior, it is toward cooperation. Indeed cooperation is the pervasive, if unnoticed, background of human affairs against which we see competition in such stark relief.

      If it is not our ‘nature’ to compete, then ‘nurture’, or our learning history, must be responsible for its pervasive presence. Here Kohn quotes the late anthropologist Jules Henry who tells a story of an episode repeated daily in classrooms throughout the world. Boris is unable to solve an arithmetic problem. The teacher asks him to think harder while the rest of the class responds with a forest of waving hands and much sighing. Finally Peggy is called upon and proudly delivers the correct solution. “Thus Boris’ failure has made it possible for Peggy to succeed; his depression is the price of her exhilaration; his misery the occasion of her rejoicing … To a Zuni, Hopi, or Dakota Indian, Peggy’s performance would seem cruel beyond belief.”

      This brief anecdote illustrates two important points. First, if such an event would not occur in all cultures, the human nature argument is considerably weakened. No behavior is understood to be innate or inevitable if some cultures simply do not perform it. Second, the story shows how within Western culture we teach children to compete without even trying. Peggy and Boris have both learned ‘the rules of the game’ in a way that far surpasses any lesson one could consciously create. No amount of instruction to ‘be nice’ will ever outweigh experiences such as this. The real lesson learned is to win in socially acceptable ways with minimal acknowledgement of the joy and pain involved. We teach this every day.

      To those who would argue that such lessons build character, Kohn replies that this is the second myth of competition: It makes us better people. Kohn’s thesis is that “we compete to overcome fundamental doubts about our capabilities and, finally, to compensate for low self-esteem.” We want to win because we fear we are ‘losers’. Eliminate this comparative, competitive framework of evaluation, and the need to compete (and win) disappears. As Kohn says: “The real alternative to being number one is not being number two but being psychologically free enough to dispense with rankings all together.”

      Research evidence nicely supports Kohn’s thesis that genuine self-esteem is best built outside of competitive frameworks. From a review of 17 separate studies, David and Roger Johnson conclude: “cooperative learning situations, compared to competitive and individualistic situations, promote higher levels of self-esteem and healthier processes for deriving conclusions about one’s self-worth.” The same essential finding has been replicated in studies of competitive versus non-competitive summer camps, competitive and non-competitive grading systems, and cross-cultural research.

      The reasons for such outcomes are none too mysterious. Most obviously, in most competitions most participants lose. But perhaps more importantly, in cooperative situations tremendous gain is derived from sharing one’s skills in a helpful way with others. Relationships of trust and appreciation surely do more for one’s sense of well-being than the constant struggle to beat others.

      Pleasure and productivity

      The last two myths about the advantages of competition are perhaps the most dearly held. The first is that competition is fun, and the second is that competitive frameworks make for the highest levels of productivity. Once again Kohn attacks these popular beliefs with a combination of insight and research evidence.

      Kohn begins his examination of competitive games by defining ‘play’: something that is all about process, where outcomes matter not at all. “The master aphorist G.K. Chesterton perfectly captured the spirit of play when he said: ‘If a thing is worth doing at all, it is worth doing badly.’ “Obviously this notion of play is directly opposed to the spirit of sports today. We ‘play to win’ — without the slightest sense of the contradiction inherent in the phrase.

      The fixation of American children on winning, or at least preventing anyone else from winning, is demonstrated by cross-cultural research with a simple game. In the game two children sit on opposite sides of a checker board-like playing surface. A marker is placed on the middle square and the children are told that they will take turns moving the marker one square at a time for a total of 20 moves. If a child gets the marker to his side of the board, he will receive a prize. Then the game will be played again (four times total), and the other child will go first.

      Among four- and five-year-olds, Anglo-American and Mexican-American children almost universally help one another take turns in winning. That is, the child who goes second moves the marker in the direction of the other child’s goal. Virtually every game ends with one child getting a prize. However, among seven-to-nine-year-olds, the pattern changes completely. Both Anglo-American and Mexican-American children prevent anyone from winning 50 to 80 per cent of the time. Only Mexican seven-to-nine-year-olds with little or no contact with American culture manage to cooperate and earn prizes in a majority of the games.

      The obvious futility of wasting one’s energy preventing another from winning provides the starting point for Kohn’s critique of competition’s contribution to productivity. “Good competitors” don’t see themselves as wasting energy in thinking about another’s performance, but considerable research evidence suggests that they may be.

      In the late 1970s and early 1980s a team of researchers at the University of Texas set out to identify the personality characteristics that correlated with the highest levels of professional performance. They reasoned that striving for mastery, a positive attitude toward work, and competitiveness would all correlate positively with achievement. When the first study was run with Ph.D. scientists (achievement measured by how often their published papers were cited) the results were surprising. High levels of mastery and work orientation were found among the highest achievers, but these top achievers showed low levels of competitiveness. To test the result, many more studies were conducted, each time using a different sample of subjects (businessmen, college students, airline reservation agents, and grade school students), and each time the same result was found. Competitiveness consistently correlated negatively with achievement. That is, those high in achievement were low in competitiveness.

      But beyond the analysis of individual differences, a more important issue concerns whether competitive or cooperative structures draw out the best work from those within them. Here again the research evidence runs contrary to popular assumptions. Kohn cites one review of 122 studies on the question: “Sixty-five studies found that cooperation promotes higher achievement than competition, eight found the reverse, and 36 found no statistically significant difference.” Equally fascinating, in study after study of reward structures, it has been found that the best results are obtained when all team members are rewarded equally for their work.

      In sum, to change the competitive nature of society will require a major step in consciousness. It is one thing to say “I don’t like competition,” and it is quite another to root out its origins within the psyche and to change our structures of work and play. If these changes are to constitute the foundation of the new age, Kohn’s book could be a tremendously useful tool in the work ahead. It provides a clear mirror within which to see unchallenged popular assumptions about life. It invites the reader to build a new society in thought and deed.

      From the March 1998 issue of Share International

      Link to Alfie Kohn’s No Contest:


      Read 4 chapters online here:


      anyways, I don’t assume our species will survive long enough for it to happen, but if we do survive I have little doubt it will be due in no small part to the fact that at some point ‘MEGA’ became the dirtiest 4-letter word on this planet, everyone will have come to realize the diabolical stupidity of our having ever created scarcity out of wholecloth due to a self-harming fundamental misconception

      Kohn is a master Thinker – his “Unconditional Parenting” is another book the whole world should sit down and read – hope you enjoy No Contest – I lend my copy out to people seriously searching for answers, few as they are

      • graccibros
        March 21, 2015 at 4:53 pm

        thanks Ack Nice, there’s quite a bit to digest in your posting, from a new name for me – and his many books. Ironically, he lives in Belmont, MA I see, the physical paradigm for the good upper middle class achievers in Charles Murray’s Coming Apart (2012). I rather doubt Kohn and Murray share much in common; whether they would be competitors I’ll leave for Kohn to clarify.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.