O capital no Antropoceno

by Kōhei Saitō, Caroline M. Gomes (Translator), Maria Orlanda Pinassi (Preface)

Qual é a relação entre capitalismo, sociedade e natureza? Em O capital no Antropoceno, o filósofo japonês Kohei Saito propõe uma interpretação dos estudos de Karl Marx frente aos problemas ambientais que enfrentamos no século XXI. A mensagem central da obra é que o sistema capitalista dominante, de alta financeirização e busca ilimitada do lucro, está destruindo o planeta, e só um novo sistema, pautado pelo decrescimento, com a produção social e a partilha da riqueza como objetivo central, é capaz de reparar os danos causados até aqui.

“A tecnologia revolucionária deu livre curso a um crescimento desmedido da economia e, consequentemente, aos seus efeitos cumulativos sobre a elevação descontrolada da temperatura, secas e chuvas extremas, incêndios gigantescos, derretimento das calotas polares e elevação do nível dos mares, zonas de sacri­fício em expansão, contaminação generalizada dos bens comuns e perda acentuada da biodiversidade. No entanto, como ele enfatiza, é a imensa e esmagadora maioria vulnerável dos povos que habitam o Sul global que mais padece as consequências do expansionismo destrutivo, sendo compelida a um sem-fim de migrações climáticas e a uma vida errática em busca de sobrevivência por meio de trabalhos degradantes”, escreve Maria Orlanda Pinassi na apresentação da obra.

Best-seller, a obra vendeu mais de 500 mil exemplares no Japão e teve seus direitos vendidos a países como Espanha, China, Coreia do Sul, Alemanha, França, Taiwan, Reino Unido e Estados Unidos.

Genres: Nonfiction, Economics, Politics, Philosophy, Environment, Climate Change, Audiobook

232 pages, Paperback

First published September 17, 2020

About the author

Kohei Saito received his Ph.D. from Humboldt University in Berlin. He is currently associate professor of political economy at Osaka City University. He has published articles and reviews on Marx’s ecology, including “The Emergence of Marx’s Critique of Modern Agriculture,” and “Marx’s Ecological Notebooks,” both in Monthly Review. He is working on editing the complete works of Marx and Engels, Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA) Volume IV/18, which includes a number of Marx’s natural scientific notebooks.

Reviews

[The Conspiracy is Capitalism · Rating 4 out of 5]

Economic Democracy within Planetary Boundaries…

--This is my top priority topic, so let’s dive right in…

The Questionable:
1) Labels and Framing:
--I think a manifesto should start broad for a wider audience, while having a coherent and principled direction. Thus, my go-to intro on degrowth remains Hickel’s Less is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World.
--Saito’s book, while well-written, is more advanced in its framing (from labels to sources used). Is Saito’s use of the provocative label “degrowth communism” (after 3 chapters of build-up) effective?

1a) “Degrowth”:
--I’m actually more frustrated by the confusion this label generates amongst radicals who are fine with labels like “socialism”! We can only excuse a part of this due to concerns over Malthusian elitist conservationism against the masses (ex. “overpopulation” fear-mongering conveniently hiding the elite’s colossal consumption/waste/control over production/investment), which I unpack in the messy Less Sucks: Overpopulation, Eugenics, and Degrowth.
…However, it’s the political economy confusion from several of my top influences that I find perplexing. Critics like anarchist Chomsky (in The Climate Crisis and the Global Green New Deal: The Political Economy of Saving the Planet) and socialists/Marxists like Radhika Desai (see 56:33 of this video) always start with: sure, we need degrowth in certain areas, but we still need growth in areas crucial for social needs. …As if degrowth wants to stop everything from growing, including your children.
…They simply avoid the anti-capitalist foundations of radical degrowth (which they share!) in order to confuse degrowth with (capitalist) austerity, leading to (capitalist) “stagnation”/recession. Palm meets face.
…Desai then says Neoliberalism (since 1970s) actually hurts economic growth, implying economic growth is not a key driver of environmental overshoot:
i) I assume Desai is confusing economic growth with “development”, which Neoliberalism did indeed sacrifice.
ii) Even if the rate of annual GDP growth has lessened during Neoliberalism, the overall GDP is still experiencing compound growth (scary how unintuitive this rising curve is, as we always assume linear growth). The growth rate is applied annually to the growing base that includes previous growth; a constant 3% annual growth rate would mean total GDP doubles in 23 years!
...Of course, GDP is not directly the driver; it is an aggregate indicator of individual capitalists' goal of endless accumulation via profits/rents. Once again, the focus for capitalism's “economic health” (to prevent this volatile system from crashing) is on its extractive rates (flows; ever-more short-term; see Harvey's time-space compression) which contradicts with future costs/finite planet's resources (stocks; long-term)/their socioecological reproduction flows (long-term, from raising children to building communities to the biosphere's cycles).
iii) Is Desai seriously recommending we return to the economic growth rate of post-WWII boom’s Military Keynesianism, the start of the “Great Acceleration” in overshooting planetary boundaries? (Facing the Anthropocene: Fossil Capitalism and the Crisis of the Earth System) …Imagine applying that annual growth rate onto our current GDP! Are we trying to build a wind turbine for every person?!

--Degrowth’s anti-capitalist foundations:
i) “Growth” here refers to economic growth, notoriously measured by the “GDP” (Gross Domestic Product: summing up the monetary value of domestic market transactions) normalized after its role measuring WWII war production. On a deeper level, market transactions require:
a) “Artificial scarcity“:
--Markets for “real commodities” long pre-date capitalism. Capitalism’s peculiar markets were born from the “Enclosures” in Britain which privatized land (creating the land market) so proto-entrepreneurs (financed by debt, thus the money market) could use it to produce wool and thus textiles as a (real) commodity for global markets; the serfs dispossessed of land had nothing to sell but their labour (creating the labour market). For more on land/labour/money being “fictitious commodities” (not produced just for buying/selling), see: Why Can't You Afford a Home?.
--Common access had to be violently prohibited (removing freedoms for the many) in order to create great freedoms for the biggest property owners to extract the raw materials and labour (fictitious commodities) needed to produce (real) commodities, ensnaring the masses in market dependency to sell their labour, purchase their goods/services, pay their taxes, rent land, fall into debt etic. since they lost their means of production/autonomy (a foundational capitalist contradiction up to today’s automation). Saito calls this the “Tragedy of the Commodity”, to counter the "Tragedy of the Commons" myth.
--The value system under capitalist markets is dictated by market exchange-value. A forest (with unquantifiable socioecological value) has no capitalist economic value, unless it is (1) cut down and sold (exchanged) as timber commodities, (2) privatized and rented or hoarded for fictitious exchange on speculative financial markets (ex. carbon offset markets), or (3) burnt down (where fire-fighting services stimulates market exchange, indeed GDP). This is the viral rationality of capitalism.
--Saito references the Lauderdale Paradox theorizing the inverse relationship between public wealth (Commons) vs. private wealth (artificial scarcity), by the eighth Earl of Lauderdale’s 1804 An Inquiry into the Nature and Origin of Public Wealth. This was not able to dethrone Adam Smith’s glorification of capitalism’s private wealth accumulation benefiting the public in 1776’s An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, as the socioecological costs of the rise of capitalism was conveniently externalized from the ivory towers and onto the masses (dispossessed working class in “dark Satanic mills”/urban slums without sanitation/coal mines/workhouses at home, to slave plantations/coolies/indigenous genocide abroad).
b) “Radical abundance”:
--Thus, degrowth challenges the growth of artificial scarcity to force labour/ecological services for the super-parasites’ endless accumulation. Beyond our basic needs (where capitalism still incentivizes linear waste rather than sustainable circularity: Gone Tomorrow: The Hidden Life of Garbage), capitalism’s logic is that of social addiction to keep its boom/bust elite accumulation going.
--As capital is allowed to traverse the globe in nanoseconds, labour struggles to keep up as its increasingly-precarious hamster wheel of work (Bullshit Jobs: A Theory; The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class)/vapid entertainment/stress consumerism to recover from work (Captains Of Consciousness: Advertising And The Social Roots Of The Consumer Culture) keep us distracted from the use-value of a fulfilling life: autonomy not just for our own time but also for the socioecological communities we build with that free time.
…Over-work, over-production with mal-distribution, addictive mass consumerism, all amidst artificial scarcity to discipline the masses and no value for socioecological relations, this quantitative cancerous growth is no longer achieving quality of life improvements (The Myth of Normal: Trauma, Illness, and Healing in a Toxic Culture). The value system to reverse this sickness is antithetical to the decay of today’s capitalism: decolonization, Commons (ex. People's Power: Reclaiming the Energy Commons), more free time and value for care-work and long-term ecological relationships, cooperation/reciprocity, universal social services, creative workers’ autonomy rather than disciplined division-of-labour, etc.
--For debunking “green growth”, Saito mirrors the intro from Hickel’s Less is More, while also mentioning the use of planetary boundaries in Raworth’s Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist while noting Raworth is less clear on critiquing the capitalist root (production/markets/class).

ii) Degrowth targets the Global North’s overextraction of the Global South (The Imperial Mode of Living: Everyday Life and the Ecological Crisis of Capitalism), thus acknowledging the Global South requires “growth” to decolonize and improve their standard of living.
…I would add that even the latter can benefit from an anti-capitalist degrowth lens: the Global South needs space (currently suffocated by rent-seeking foreign debt/intellectual property/cash crop trade dependency, which Global South elites also conveniently exploit) for radical alternatives to leap-frog over the Global North’s fossil fuel/artificial scarcity/class domination/crisis-ridden development path, otherwise the initial infrastructure would lock in the Global South for escalating emissions and little grassroots power to dismantle it! (Elsewhere, Saito references André Gorz’s “open” vs. “locking” technologies).
…After all, the Global North’s path requires an external source (Global South) for super-exploitation and to externalize its many socioecological crises.
…So much of capitalism’s wasteful means of production are already outsourced to the Global South. Of course, this is mal-formed into scattered subcontractors to promote ruthless competition and prevent substantial nationalization, which is why South-South cooperation is foundational to pool resources and de-link from Global North’s rent-seeking Finance capitalism (debt/intellectual property).
-ex. article on IBSA and BRICS (IBSA: India, Brazil, South Africa: South-South cooperation where India shared its means of production in pharmaceuticals, blocked by Global North’s Big Pharma intellectual property rent-seeking).
-Capital and Imperialism: Theory, History, and the Present
-A People’s Green New Deal

1b) “Communism”:
--While this label may become more viable for younger generations, the Cold War Red Scare era boomers (Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism) are a significant demographic owning most of capitalist assets.
…Curiously, capitalism’s unparalleled volatility (recall The Communist Manifesto: “All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned”) is hidden in abstraction (ex. “hot money” gentrifying booms and capital flight busts), opening a vacuum for conservatives to scapegoat visible changes (immigrants, i.e. labour trying to catch up with capital movement).
…Ex. Jordan Peterson’s critique of “chaos” (12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos) carefully avoids capitalism, putting the blame on Leftists who critique the status quo (assumed as stable, when in reality the volatility is built into the status quo: Thinking in Systems: A Primer).
…Saito frames “communism” as following degrowth’s aim to reverse artificial scarcity/global finance dependency and build radical abundance of Commons, cooperation, and self/community autonomy, where economic democracy is foundational.
…So, if we sum up these labels, I would say “degrowth communism” can be translated as “use-value economic democracy” or “economic democracy within planetary boundaries”. Labels will always be limited, so the sooner we jump to the content, the better.

2) Political Action…How?:
--This topic is only briefly mentioned near the end; I would like more in a manifesto.
…Saito repeats what seems like the standard academic-Left answer here: referencing “3.5 per cent”, the percentage of the population required for nonviolent civil resistance to win according to the research of Chenoweth’s Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict. This is also the centerpiece of Extinction Rebellion: This Is Not A Drill: An Extinction Rebellion Handbook
--Saito also briefly outlines the lineage of direct action/participatory democracy/citizens’ assemblies: i) 1993 Via Campesina’s (“The Peasants’ Way”) international farmers’ cooperative struggling for food sovereignty/agroecology vs. capitalist agriculture’s capital-intensive monocrops/export crop trade deals/debts/intellectual property; 1994 Zapatista uprising in protest of the start of NAFTA.
ii) Extinction Rebellion; Yellow Vests; Ecuador’s indigenous movements’ buen vivir (“to live well”); Standing Rock Dakota Access Pipeline protests; Barcelona’s “Fearless Cities” movement, etc.
-A People’s Green New Deal
-The Red Deal: Indigenous Action to Save Our Earth
-This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate

…see the comments for the rest of the review (“The Good”)...

[Nathan Shuherk · Rating 5 out of 5]

I think everyone should find a few friends and read this one together. People have often criticized my recommendations for not being “hopeful” enough, but there is no hope without effort, without change, without revolution. We have to think and talk about our future if we want to ensure there even is a future.

[Max · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am a bit conflicted regarding this book. On the one hand I am genuinely happy that there is a book that sheds a light on communism which does not focus only on the negative connotations followed by for example the Soviet Union or other regimes. On the other hand, it is quite dry and scholarly (despite the attractive, popular looking cover) and does not seem to pose any realistic solutions. Of course it isn't easy to solve climate change problems and dissolve capitalism (preferably in one go), but the definition of "degrowth communism" doesn't seem to be very clear for me. Do we all go back to medieval times?

I am a fan of the short, easy to read sub-chapters. These really help the reader to take a moment to process the information before they get on to the next topic. So in all, good book, but not (yet) the game changer we need.

Thank you so much to the author, publisher and NetGalley for an ARC to read & review. These are my honest opinions.

[Owen Hatherley · Rating 3 out of 5]

By now am really just frustrated by reading Marxish books on climate change, which fit either into Box A: Workers, in which we pretend that the left is going to win an important election anytime soon in the Global North and that the American way of life is in some way sustainable (because 'Workers'), or Box B: Degrowth, in which we pretend that Global South urbanisation and industrialisation isn't happening or worth thinking about and that co-ops, allotments or a revolt of - I quote - 'the 3.5%' is going to do anything much. This is Box B at its most sincere, engagingly written and hand-wavey, and we're just more and more and more screwed.

[Kai · Rating 2 out of 5]

full review in Theory & Event: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/932020

"I am not prone towards making sweeping statements about the key strategy for communist political struggle today. Yet I do believe that we ignore or dismiss desire at our peril. At the level of structural politics, we have to be attentive to the prevailing mood or “structures of feeling” which are part (but only part) of the conditions, not of our choosing, in which we must struggle. At the level of micropolitics, we need to cultivate desires in and of our organizations which allow them to build collective power. Marxist method forms the matrix for communist strategy, but the word of Marx is an opening of that matrix, not its closure. As Daniel Bensaïd wrote over thirty years ago, “It would be ridiculous, relying on quotations, to pit a productivist Marx against a precociously ecological Marx. It is better to take up a position in his contradictions, and take them seriously.” It is in Marx’s contradictions as much as the world’s that the freedom of communism must be forged."

[Stefanos · Rating 5 out of 5]

Reading “Slow Down” immediately after Aaron Bastani’s “Fully Automated Luxury Communism” was the perfect antidote to the latter’s overly optimistic, green techno-utopianism. In “Slow Down”, Saito Kohei synthesizes two schools of thoughts usually considered to be at odds – Marxism and Degrowth economics.

Marx is often read as being a “productivist”, envisioning that growth, technology, and Capitalist innovation leads to tremendous accumulation of wealth which however is inherently dependent on the exploitation (and alienation) of the working class. This tension is theorized to be the catalyst for the working class to eventually seize control of the means of production and usher in the era of Socialism [my caricature].

On the contrary, the concept of Degrowth challenges the notion that growth can persist indefinitely on a finite planet, especially if we aspire to maintain Earth as a habitable place for human beings. Instead, Degrowth posits the planned and democratic reduction of non-essential production (e.g., SUVs, private jets, fast fashion, industrial meat, overcoming planned obsolescence etc) especially by the rich (countries and individuals). The objective is to decarbonize the economy, shift away from GDP as the central metric and place indicators of human flourishing at the forefront of economic goals. This typically means preserving (or even growing) the most essential parts of the economy: health care, education, housing, science, research and development, arts etc.

On the two Marxes
How, then, can these two seemingly conflicting schools of thought coexist? Saito argues that the early Marx – evident in the “Communist Manifesto” era – held a productivist stance with a linear perspective on human history, with nations having to undergo the stages of capitalist development before laying the foundation for Socialism and eventually Communism. As Marx delved into writing of Capital Vol. 1, he began to reconsider the linear conception of historical development and incorporated considerations of nature into his analytical framework.

Yet, through the reexamination and recontextualization of Marx's notes and letters, Saito posits that, post-Capital Vol. 1, Marx immersed himself in the study of natural sciences, agricultural practices, and diverse communal and indigenous societies, which transformed his thinking and essentially led him to Degrowth Communism. Saito’s reading of Marx is quite intriguing and thought-provoking. While his research and assertions sound very plausible, there's also a sense that he may be extrapolating or somewhat projecting these ideas onto Marx. In any case, I am no Marxist aficionado and I am pretty sure that future scholars will shed further light on the topic.

Despite its intellectual appeal, a question naturally arose in my head: how does Marx’s change of heart bear relevance to our current predicament? Can’t we rely on other frameworks to come to similar conclusions? Like Jason Hickel’s post-capitalist, anti-imperialist, eco-socialist framework or even by “radicalizing” Kate Raworth’s Doughnut economics? Saito contends that Marx's profound analysis and critique of Capitalism and its internal contradictions, offer valuable insights into comprehending our present challenges, and that the Marxist tradition (in certain iterations at least) presents an alternative vision for a more liberated, just, equitable, and possibly more sustainable future.

Marx vs Capitalism vs Nature
One highly pertinent Marxist concept is the “Metabolic rift” as articulated by John Bellamy Foster. In its simplest form, this concept highlights how the capitalist pursuit of profit and perpetual growth results in a profound rupture in the relationship between humans and nature. This rupture manifests in various ways, encompassing the over-exploitation of natural resources, environmental degradation, and the alienation of humans from the natural world.

“All progress in capitalist agriculture is a progress in the art, not only of robbing the worker, but of robbing the soil … Capitalist production, therefore, only develops the techniques and the degree of combination of the social process of production by simultaneously undermining the original sources of all wealth – the soil and the worker.” - Karl Marx, Capital Vol. 1

Drawing from Saito's interpretation of Marx, in times of crisis ignited by internal contradictions within Capitalism, the system tends to employ three forms of “displacement” in order to “buy time”. Obscure or mitigate the crisis, and relocate the problem or its externalities elsewhere. These encompass:
1. Technological displacement, wherein a new technology is introduced to ostensibly 'solve' a problem, yet often conceals the underlying contradiction while giving rise to numerous other challenges. For example, addressing soil depletion through the use of fertilizers can lead to water/air pollution, high emissions, loss of biodiversity, and soil degradation.
2. Spatial displacement, frequently taking the form of imperialism. This involves the exploitation of resources from, and/or the dumping of consequences onto, the imperial periphery.
3. Temporal displacement, characterized by achieving short-term objectives, prioritizing immediate profit, and shifting the consequences or externalities to the future.

All three forms of displacement sound very familiar to the ongoing environmental crises. The repercussions of temporal displacement are already evident, as for instance we experience more frequent extreme weather events. (Regrettably, the periphery often bears the brunt of worse consequences despite not being the primary contributor to the problem.). A trend toward technological displacement is also observable, where even if it was possible to shift to 100% renewables, this would substitute the issue posed by fossil fuels and emission with the over-extraction of certain scarce resources. And in the spatial dimension, countries in the global north may ostensibly reduce emissions, but they are essentially transferring production and its externalities to the global south.

Capitalism is addicted to growth. Without it, the system risks plunging into economic recession, causing severe consequences, particularly for the most vulnerable in society. Consequently, capitalism finds itself in direct conflict with the environmental boundaries necessary to maintain a planet habitable for human beings (and other species).

The opiate of the masses
Alright. But what is the alternative? Currently, the two default responses seem to be an individualist and consumerist version of ecology and green growth. In regards to ecology, Saito aligns with Zizek: “Ecology is the opiate of the masses”. On an individual level, many of us obsess over separating glass, metal and plastic. We bring our tote bags and thermos to avoid plastic bags or bottles or we time and reduce our shower duration. At the end of the day we feel that “I did my part!”. Then, the existential climate anxiety temporality subsides and we can temporarily forget about the issue. These practices are all well and good – I do that too – however, their impact is minimal and we can’t solely rely on altering and “greening” individual consumption habits to effectively address the environmental crises.

On the other hand, green growth stands as the default macro-economic stance, endorsed by both neo-liberals and neo-keynesians, either in the form of SGDs (Sustainable Development Goals) or green new deals aiming to stimulate the economy through investments in green technologies and infrastructure. The underlying idea is that we can persist with “business as usual” by “decoupling” GDP and carbon emissions through substantial investments in renewable energy, electric cars, and the like. And we are assured that even if renewables do not entirely eliminate emissions, solutions like carbon capture and geo-engineering will come to the rescue. Saito contends that the “SDGs are the opiate of the masses”. This position holds considerable allure, as it suggests minimal need for fundamental changes—merely investments in the right technologies.

Green growth and other fantasies
One problem of many problems with the idea of “green growth” is that economic growth tends to increase economic activity, whereas increased efficiency does not necessarily equate to reduced use or consumption (Jevons paradox). For instance, while we now have more energy-efficient TVs and cars, we produce, advertise and purchase ever larger TVs and cars, thus nullifying gains in energy-efficiency. Secondly, the total shift to renewables while purpusing ever increasing growth, merely shifts the problem from extracting fossil fuels and producing emissions to over-extracting scarce resources essential to build solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries. Spatially, this process transfers the burden and consequences to the (typically poorer) countries with higher amounts of these sought-after resources. Embracing green growth also necessitates placing unwavering faith in unproven technologies or those yet to be invented. For example, the scalability of carbon capture is highly contested, raising crucial questions about its land, water, and energy requirements. Consequently, the notions of green growth and decoupling appear fantastically naive at best and existentially perilous at worst.

What does the future hold?
For Saito, four potential futures lay ahead of us: 1) Climate Fascism: where the rich get richer by exploiting disaster capitalism while the rest of us face the severe consequences of climate change, resulting (among other issues) to huge waves of refugees, sparking new waves of extreme far-right responses. 2) Barbarism: resembling Climate Fascist, this scenario also involves prolonged wars for fertile land and natural resources. 3) Climate Maoism: Envisaging top-down authoritarian control policies to tackle the chaos resulting from either Climate Fascism or Barbarism. 4) Degrowth Communism.

Saito recontextualizes Marx's proposals within the framework of Degrowth Communism for the 21st century:
1) Shift focus away from economic/exchange value to use value: end over-production, advertising, and over-consumption, prioritize human needs and flourishing.
2+3) Shorten the workweek and abolish the division of labor: fewer hours of work, more free time for “play” and “non-consumerist” activities, end “bullshit jobs” (ala David Graeber).
4) Democratize the workplace and the city: establish co-ops and municipalism.
5) Prioritize social care: essential work for human flourishing that is currently undervalued under Capitalism. This ties well with Feminist economics.
6) Reclaim the commons (ala Zizek): external nature, internal nature, culture and humanity.
7) Universal services: free access to housing, health care, education, public transportation, internet and other essential components to empower individuals to have control over their lives and foster autonomy.

These proposals are, of course, not all encompassing. Numerous questions remain: how to implement such policies, how exactly to organize and plan production democratically or how to convince the majority of people to proceed with a degrowth plan when we have been brainwashed that growth is the most important imperative. Moreover, I am not convinced that “degrowth” is the optimal term to describe this movement, as it inadvertently evokes notions of recession, austerity or regression to a bygone “dark age” – when it absolutely is not that.

In any case, there is no blueprint here. The path forward must be navigated through social movements, collective struggle, and solidarity. But the point is that these components can concurrently achieve two crucial objectives: redirect the focus towards human flourishing while selectively reducing less essential aspects of the economy, thereby facilitating decarbonization in the short run and laying the groundwork for long-term sustainability and coexistence with the planet. If we reduce working hours and eliminate unfulfilling jobs, we gain the precious opportunity to engage in activities that truly resonate with us—whether it be hiking, conducting research, reading, writing, playing music, socializing, tending to a garden, or exercising. This not only enhances our well-being and happiness but also, as a positive byproduct, minimizes environmental impact. By democratizing both our workplaces and cities, we not only empower ourselves with greater control over our lives but also diminish the likelihood of making choices that harm the environment—such as dumping toxic waste into our rivers or polluting the air we breathe. And so on.

Critics question the feasibility of Degrowth and express concerns about the ability to achieve such a large-scale change within a timeframe conducive to decarbonizing the economy. History will only tell. However, we can hypothesize that if degrowth fails to materialize, the potential setback could translate to the loss of a few years of traditional economic growth, while we try to create a more democratic, equitable, and just world. However, let us contemplate the inverse scenario. If Green Growth is erroneous, the consequences might reach the point of no return, marked by environmental degradation, resource depletion, and exacerbated social inequalities. In contrast, if Degrowth proves to be the correct path, we would have “won the world” and “saved” the planet in the process.

[Steve Donoghue]

In this English-language translation of the Japanese bestseller, the author paints a picture in which all of humanity has a common enemy and a common cause: catastrophic climate change, the acceleration of which will devastate economies and render swaths of human civilization untenable. The problem, as he sees it, is rampaging capitalism, which has fenced in all the "commons" of human life and strangled all but a few vestiges of human happiness. Here he calls for 'degrowth communism' to reverse these inequalities and give the species a chance to survive its own prosperity. As with all calls for any kind of communism, he's strategically unclear on who would be in charge of the degrowing (hint: they're the ones with summer dachas), but even so, there are some genuinely urgent points here, some undeniable truths. My full review is here: https://openlettersreview.com/posts/s...

[Pablo Mallorquí · Rating 3 out of 5]

Se publica en España el ensayo de economía y política que arrasó en Japón el año pasado. Iba con las expectativas muy altas, porque nunca había leído un ensayo así desde la óptica japonesa y por el éxito cosechado y me he encontrado con un libro muy sencillo y algo ingenuo. La estructura es muy ágil y repasa bien la crísis clímatica y sus orígenes en el capitalismo. Pero el libro es muy superficial, con capítulos de apenas una página que va dando saltos sobre diferentes cuestiones sin desarrollarlas en profundidad. Además, da la sensación de que el autor iba con una hipótesis clara que no mueve ni un ápice, ni siquiera cuando examina distintas alternativas a la crisis climática que el no comparte. Un ensayo ameno, que permite orientarse en el antropoceno pero que le falta profundidad.

[Alexander McEvoy · Rating 2 out of 5]

Saitō spends too much time outlining discoveries from a project he's working on that will produce a complete volume of Marx and Engels' writings. While this project is valuable from an academic sense, the middle third of the book is consumed by outlining that Marx had actually predicted ecological collapse and Marxism can be grafted to this problem as a tidy solution.

This is interesting but irrelevant to the segment of the audience that isn't invested in whether or not Marx had a particular opinion. It should be noted Saitō intended this book to be persuasive to non-Marxists, in this case it's a failure.

But Saitō does bring up some core questions that Green Growthers (of who I'd identify) need to grapple with:

1. Can economic growth be successfully decoupled from carbon emissions to the extent necessary to avoid the worst impacts of Climate Change? While Saitō underplays the extent to which decoupling has been achieved, the central question remains.

2. The developed world expelled the majority of the overall carbon emissions in human history to achieve their current status. The developing world cannot expel that same amount of carbon to increase their wealth and well-being. If the answer to question 1 is yes, then how will global redistribution of green technologies be achieved?

I don't know all of the implications of the above questions, but they should be grappled with by global bodies such as the UN, etc.

[GONZA · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm not sure I fully understood what the author means by "degrowth communism," but he certainly pleaded his case in an extremely articulate way, so much so that by the end of this book I wasn't sure whether to set out to write a review or commit suicide directly....

Non sono sicura di aver ben capito cosa intenda l'autore per "comunismo di decrescita", ma sicuramente ha perorato la sua causa in modo estremamente articolato, tanto che alla fine di questo libro non ero sicura se mettermi a scrivere una recensione o suicidarmi direttamente....

I received from the Publisher a complimentary digital advanced review copy of the book in exchange for a honest review.

[Stephen Power · Rating 4 out of 5]

SLOW DOWN goes a step beyond the wonderful THE HEAT WILL KILL YOU FIRST. HEAT demonstrates that the only way out of the growing climate disaster is to stop burning fossil fuels. SLOW DOWN shows why we have to stop the reason for that burning: rapacious growth capitalism.

Saito's solution is degrowth communism, which replaces the empty "value" desired by capitalism, especially financial capitalism, with the substantive "use-value" promoted by communism. That is, we should make things because people need them, not just because they'll buy them. Companies should be about making these things instead of managing their returns a la Jack Welch in order to create stable, expected returns for shareholders. That is, our economy should be about people as people, not people as a resource to exploit and exhaust. To put in terms of the movie THE MENU, Saito's ordering up an actual cheeseburger, tasty and nutritious, with fries, not some calorie-free, avant, deconstructed cheeseburger. And he's absolutely right. The problem with green initiatives, however effective, simply can't counterbalance the destruction demanded by growth capitalism in its search for at least 10% more profit annually.

The one problem with the book isn't Saito's reliance on Marx's ideas, which make sense. It's that he's using the book also to champion and defend those ideas because they run counter to Marx's earlier thoughts. In addition, Saito often writes defensively because he knows the very notion of relying on Marx's ideas might cause readers to recoil, their having been raised in the capitalist faith. This defense might be important for an academic audience, which, being an academic, he might be writing for, but a popular audience would just want the ideas and how they'll save the world, so the academic defense is distracting and feels off-point. In addition, has no one else had thoughts along these lines since Marx? Bringing in more recent economists not just to contravene them would make the book feel fresher plus it would obviate Sait's defensiveness by showing that Marx isn't alone.

That said, SLOW DOWN, like THE HEAT WILL KILL YOU FIRST, is one of those books that prevents a positive and possible vision that, once seen, can't be unseen. It will make you question what you consume, why companies are creating it for your consumption and what that consumption means for our future.

Thanks to the publisher and Net Galley for the early look.

[A:) · Rating 5 out of 5]

really learned a lot, feel much less cynical but still have a bit of that.

I wanted more around violence both state violence in response to revolutionary acts and really violence in the act of resistance but i mean maybe that’s just not what this books about.

also I am hesitant around his critique of the top down approach like i agree with most of it however I have less faith in the alternative which is people making choices for the collective that may not benefit them short term but maybe that’s the cynic in me

however keeping it at 5 stars obsessed with the term “Imperial Mode of Living” which is the standard that all of you reading this probably live myself included. reminded me of the tweet about ordering fast food delivery “private taxi for my burrito” that tweet alone cut down my unnecessary food delivery habit lol

[Kariem · Rating 4 out of 5]

Saito has this thing where he writes 7 of the most salient, eloquently, epigrammatically put and incredibly direct hard hitting lines of theory which may really lay the foundations for saving the species, and then one page of liberal-left brain rot with the irony of how much he commentates on left liberalism completely missed upon him. After that page 7 more incredible pages, and so on

[Joe Moore · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pretty good sort of like reading a decade of tweets

[Bücherwolf · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Systemsturz" von Kōhei Saitō hat sich innerhalb kürzester Zeit bereits zu einem Klassiker der kapitalismuskritischen Bücher durchgesetzt, das mit Thomas Pikettys Werken auf einer Ebene steht. Deshalb bestand für mich kein Zweifel daran, dass ich es selbst lesen und beurteilen muss. Ich bin zwar etwas spät dran, da ich auf das Erscheinen des Taschenbuchs gewartet habe, bin jetzt aber froh, dieses Sachbuch endlich gelesen zu haben!

Wie muss sich unsere Gesellschaft und Wirtschaft verändern, wenn wir nicht am Klimawandel zugrunde gehen möchten?
Diese Frage bildet das Fundament dieses visionären Sachbuchs, das den alten Karl Marx aus seinem Grab holt und seine Ideen mit aktuellen Ergebnissen der Marx-Forschung neu interpretiert. Wer vor dieser Lektüre noch nicht ganz verstanden hat, was durch den Klimawandel wirklich auf uns zu kommt und was wir tun müssten, um als Menschheit zu überleben, ist nach dem Lesen dieses Buches definitiv aufgeklärt und sollte die Dringlichkeit unseres Handelns nicht länger relativieren können.
Doch um was geht es in "Systemsturz"?
Zunächst wird eindeutig und dringlich aufgezeigt, dass die Menschheit im Kapitalismus nicht weiterexistieren kann. Denn eine Wirtschaft, die auf Wachstum und Konsum ausgelegt ist, wird sich selbst gegen die Wand fahren. Doch das ist ja vielen Leser*innen nichts neues. Auf Grundlage dieses Problems analysiert er bekannte Lösungsansätze wie den Klima-Keynesianismus und erläutert, warum diese nicht radikal genug sind, um uns zu retten.

Saitōs Lösung: Der Degrowth-Kommunismus. Wie vielleicht einigen bekannt ist, hat Karl Marx seiner Zeit nur den ersten Band seines wichtigsten Werkes "Das Kapital" beenden können. Seine Arbeit blieb unvollständig und frei für Interpretationen. Nun haben verschiedene Forscher*innen Aufschriebe, die sich Karl Marx beim Lesen wichtiger Lektüren gemacht hatte, wiederentdeckt und die Ideen Marx' neu interpretiert. Und genau daraus leitet Kōhei Saitō den Degrowth-Kommunismus ab, der aus fünf Säulen bestehe. Diese werde ich jedoch nicht ausschreiben, da ich sehr empfehlen kann, diese selbst beim Lesen des Buches kennenzulernen und zu verstehen.
Laut dem Autor ist der Degrowth-Kommunismus unsere einzige Möglichkeit, wie wir dem gänzlichen Kollaps unseres Systems entgehen können und als Menschheit überleben können. Und zwar in einer Gesellschaft, die auf Wert, Stabilität und Glück aufgebaut ist. Mit einem gesunden Arbeitsklima und einem guten Lebensstandard. Dass wir, um das zu erreichen, auf einiges verzichten müssen, sollte wohl klar sein. Wir haben jedoch keine Alternativen mehr, auf die wir zurückgreifen können.

Dadurch dass dieses Buch all diese wichtigen Fakten klar aufzeigt und eine realistische Wirtschaftsform für unsere Zukunft entwirft, gebe ich "Systemsturz" 5 Sterne und empfehle es als Grundlektüre über den Kapitalismus und seine Folgen. Folgen, die uns alle betreffen und unser Leben bald schon komplett verändern werden.

Natürlich bestehen trotz allem Zweifel, ob wir Menschen früh genug handeln werden, um die Klimakrise noch bekämpfen zu können. Aber durch Bücher wie dieses geht der öffentliche Diskurs auf jeden Fall in die richtige Richtung und kann zu einer Revolution unserer Denke beitragen!

[Daniel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Im Zuge der Klimakrise sieht Dr. Kohei Sato die einzige Chance darauf den Planeten, die Umwelt und die Menschheit zu retten im Degrowth Kommunismus. Hier wird eine fundierte Kapitalismusanalyse sowie -kritik auf Grundlage von Karl Marx' Kapital Band 1 sowie seinen Notizen zu Band 2 und 3 erarbeitet. Sato ist Marx-Forscher und Kenner. Er beschreibt Marx' Entwicklung zwischen den Bänden des Kapitals und seine Arbeit an der Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA). Marx' beschäftigte sich mit so genannten "Commons", bei den Germanen und in der Sowjetunion, also kollektivierten Allgemeingütern, die zum Nutzen von Allen verwaltet werden.
Daraus zieht er die Hinwendung hin zum Degrowth, also die Abkehr vom Immerwährenden Profitstreben, er lehnt auch grünen Wachstumskapitalismus, Neoliberalismus ab.
Sato sieht die einzige Chance in der Abkehr vom Profitstreben und Überproduktion, hin zur Verallgemeinerung von Wasser, Strom etc. um die Gemeinschaft wiederzubeleben und die Umwelt retten zu können. Das 1,5 Grad Ziel hält er nur so für erreichbar.

Das E-Book hat tatäschlich fast 800 Seiten, wobei der eigentliche Text ca. 300 ausmacht, dann kommt Literatur und Wortverzeichnis inklusive digitaler Verweise, die sehr viel Platz einnehmen.

Das Buch war auf den Spiegellisten, ich habe es für die Bib gekauft. Wer sich mit linker Ökologie sowie Kapitalismuskritik auseinandersetzen möchte, ist hier genau richtig. Ein Interesse für Marx und Sozialismus sowie Kommunismus sind auch eher förderlich.
Viele kurze Kapitel, einiges an Fußnoten, aber nicht zu wissenschaftlich.

Gerne empfohlen!

[Tobi ﾄﾋﾞ · Rating 5 out of 5]

The concept of degrowth is something I have studied quite a lot and the idea never fails to captivate me. It’s such a new notion in development studies that there is not much literature on it outside of academic articles, so from reading the title alone, I was absolutely determined to get ahold of a copy of this book to read all about it. The word “degrowth” isn’t even in the English dictionary yet, and that alone pretty much sums-up where we are in development studies at the moment.



I genuinely would recommend this book to anyone researching Marxism and capitalism, over the actual works of Karl Marx. I hope this manifesto ends up being as big as I think it could be.



I’d like to thank the publishers of this book for this commission and sending me a pre-publication edition of the first English translation of this book in exchange for an honest review!!! This book is due to be published in American English on the 9th of January 2024, and below is my review as of December 2023.



“A BOLD AND URGENT CALL FOR A RETURN TO MARXISM IN THE FIGHT AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE.”



In Slow Down: The Degrowth Manifesto, Saitō(先生)’s main argument encompasses the idea that, as capitalism is the main cause of social inequality and climate change, it cannot also be the cure: As capitalism peruses profit based on value of a product over its usefulness, it is impossible for capitalism to reverse the social and environmental damage it has also created.



Saitō advocates for degrowth and deceleration of the economy, as well as a dramatic reform of labour and production. The main ways Saitō proposes to do this, is through returning to a system of social ownership, which will encompass:
- The end of mass consumption and production
- Decarbonisation through shorter working hours
- The prioritisation of essential labour over corporate profits.
So, overall, a very well rounded and complete manifesto, covering many areas that all intertwine logically in a comprehensible way. This is in no way hindered by the English translation, which has been flawlessly executed by Bergstrom all the way through.



“SDGs ARE THE OPIATE OF THE MASSES.”



In this radical manifesto, Saitō does not shy away from calling out the constant greenwashing done by the UN, World Bank, IMF, IPCC, OECD, world governments, and MNCs seeking and promoting a more environmentally “sustainable” and decoupled mode of capitalist production.



“…GREEN CAPITALISM IS A MYTH [AND] THE FUTURE IS DEGROWTH COMMUNISM.”



Satiō ingeniously composes his manifesto with reference to classic Marxism and basic communist theory, which is indeed as true and radical as it has ever been, while simultaneously transforming and adapting it to fit a modern, scientific society facing the current climate crisis.



My first impression of this book was that it discusses what I personally see as rather simple and obvious ideas and arguments. It felt quite underwhelming at first, until I continued to read and the pieces started falling together. The remarkable part of this book is how Saitō manages to compress so many arguments and so much historical and political context into this relatively short book, without seeming too rushed or unexplained.



And I learned a lot from this book, actually- despite my prior knowledge about degrowth and Marxist theory. The concepts of “Imperial Mode of Living”, “decoupling”, “bifurcation”, “Keynesianism”are basic in retrospect, but to give these systems and processes specific titles and to bring them to the surface in this comprehensive yet digestible form is a commendable choice, and I hope the usage of the terms and definitions in this book become more popular in language in the future.
This book also brings to light a very diverse range of amazing, modern philosophers, scientists and scholars, rather than heavily relying so much on such people from the far past who are well known, but who’s theories and knowledge is relatively outdated or underdeveloped today. I liked this a lot about the book, as I learned about many new modern researchers and movements that I have not seen mentioned anywhere else before, and I’m looking forward to going on to read more about them elsewhere.



I then put myself into the shoes of someone who is curious, but has never read anything like this before. If you fall into this category, I highly recommend this book to you more than to anyone else- it is a fully immersive crash course- the lessons you will learn and the ideas you will earn will be invaluable, and I have no doubt that it will provoke you to want to read and do more regarding climate change, anti-capitalism and climate activism.



We must trace the climate crisis to its root cause- capitalism- and dismantle it immediately in order to save the planet. Again, thank you for the opportunity to review this book- it is tremendous and I will definitely be recommending this to everyone I know.

[Kurt Neumaier · Rating 4 out of 5]

Less is good!

[irene · Rating 2 out of 5]

uno stile piatto ed elementare e un'argomentazione monotona e ripetitiva. il Marx ambientalista non convince. le analisi e le proposte mi hanno fatto oscillare tra "grazie al cazzo" e "la fai facile", con un basso continuo di "taglia ti prego l'hai già detto HO CAPITO".

[Letterrausch · Rating 2 out of 5]

Manchmal setze ich bei der Onleihe ein Buch schlicht aufgrund des Titels auf die Merkliste. Das war hier der Fall, denn das vorweg: Ich bin sicherlich kein Kapitalismus-Fan. Wer nicht merkt, dass wir uns global im Endstadium einer Krise befinden, der ist zu beneiden - offenbar ist er weich auf Rosen gebettet.

Auch Kōhei Saitō meint, mit dem Kapitalismus könne es so nicht weitergehen. Seine Lösung: Kommunismus. Ah ja, hier hätte ich vielleicht aufhören sollen zu lesen. Aber ich hatte doch die Hoffnung, dass er irgendwann mal zum Punkt kommt und erklärt, wie er sich das praktisch vorstellt. Stattdessen erfährt man außer "commons" und "Allmende" und dass Menschen Land (und Produktionsstätten) gemeinschaftlich verwalten sollen: Nichts. Nichts darüber, wie er das herbeiführen will. Nichts darüber, dass das - mal wieder - Enteignungen bedeuten würde. Nichts darüber, dass das Prinzip Kommunismus bisher nirgends funktioniert hat.

Stattdessen gibt es ganz viel über Karl Marx. Inwiefern das interessant oder auch nur zielführend ist, kann ich nicht sagen, da ich mich mit Marx nicht auskenne. Aber ich kann sagen, dass der Autor sich oftmals in Geschwafel verrennt und viele nicht bewiesene Behauptungen aufstellt, auf die er dann sein ganzes Gedankengerüst aufbaut. Z.B. Klimawandel: Gleich am Anfang sagt er, dass es zur Zeit der Dinosaurier 3 Grad wärmer war. Ein paar Seiten später spricht er davon, dass wir den Klimawandel stoppen müssten, um "den Planeten zu retten". Das ist Fridays for Future Niveau und eines Wissenschaftlers unwürdig. Der Planet muss nicht gerettet werden. Wenn, dann müssen wir unsere eigenen Ä***** retten - das ist aber auch schon alles. Irgendwann viel später spricht er dann vom "unumkehrbaren Klimawandel". Wenn er denn so unumkehrbar ist (warum, sagt er nie), warum machen wir uns die ganze Mühe dann eigentlich? So unscharf geht es leider weiter, denn Land in Privatbesitz wird immer ausgebeutet, gemeinsam bewirtschaftetes Land aber nicht. Offenbar hat der Autor nie in einer WG gelebt und weiß nicht, wie es ist, wenn sich NIEMAND für etwas verantwortlich fühlt, weil etwas ALLEN gehört.

Die ganze Zeit geht es um Degrowth und darum, dass wir im Kommunismus dann im Überfluss leben würden. Kōhei Saitō tut so, als würde Degrowth bedeuten, dass alle zukünftig mehr haben. Das ist das Niveau auf dem sich dieses Buch bewegt. Leider keine Blaupause für den Systemsturz.

[Esmée · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting look on how Marx was actually interested in the climate and how degrowth Marxism is the only way out of the climate crisis. Pretty theoretical, so don't expect a playbook for what to do next, but great for people who want to believe in green capitalism and are still afraid of Marxism.

[Max Mills · Rating 3 out of 5]

Overall, it is alright. I think I agree with his analysis, and he clearly knows what he is talking about describing political ecology and marxian economics and liberal economics in great detail but I feel like he presents his information overly simplistically sometimes and I'm not his target audience. He also suffers from annoying climate reductionism and "point of no return" teleology (or certain reading of science).
[More detailed criticism coming later. ]

[Geneviève Joëlle · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was excellent

[asih simanis · Rating 3 out of 5]

Slow Down by Kohei Saito is a book full of sharp arguments that also happen to be, frankly, a bit of a pain in the ass.

Saito takes on what he sees as humanity’s greatest existential threat: climate change driven by the age of the Anthropocene (apparently, that’s the fancy term for “an era where no corner of the world is untouched by human activity”). His weapon of choice? A newly reinterpreted Marxist lens. How fun. (Yes, that’s sarcasm.)

If you think Marx and communism belong to a bygone era—when ideologies still fired people’s imaginations—think again. In Saito’s world, Marx is alive, relevant, and above all, misunderstood.

According to Saito, every communist interpretation so far has misread Marx. So, naturally, he’s here to set the record straight—drawing on the latest research about Marx’s life and writings from 150 years ago. If, like me, you have limited patience for abstract theory, this description probably doesn’t make you want to read the book. But hang on—it gets better. (Or worse?)

Given all this, why did I pick up Slow Down?

Because Saito, in his 30s, has somehow become a thought leader among Japan’s leftists. I was curious. Most of my economics (and philosophy) reading has been from the Western canon—with the occasional Muhammad Yunus, though I’ve grown increasingly skeptical of his “Bank for the Poor” movement after hearing less rosy insider stories from Bangladeshi friends. I wanted to read a Japanese thinker—to de-Westernize my economic reading for once.

Naturally, I was disappointed. The book revolves almost entirely around Western economic and philosophical thought, sprinkled with vague claims of being inspired by the “Global South.” (I’m not sure he’s ever actually been here 😜.)

Anyway, rant over—let’s get to the good parts.

One thing I appreciate about Saito is his ability to name ideas I’ve long sensed but couldn’t articulate.

For instance, the Imperial Mode of Living—the notion that in our capitalist system there’s always a “center” extracting from the “periphery.” The dirty work gets outsourced to the Global South, allowing the Global North to maintain the illusion of ethical progress. This makes so much of their climate action feel painfully insincere; they don’t grasp the true cost their comfort imposes on others.

I also love how Saito dismantles the UN’s SDGs, calling them little more than feel-good gestures incapable of addressing the climate crisis. I agree. Though as a loyal Keynesian, I can’t get behind his dismissal of “Green Keynesianism” (taxation of the rich or the global north ok favor of repatriation to the Global South—such as carbon taxes etc) as too little, too late.

His discussion of use value vs. exchange value is also thought-provoking. Use value refers to the intrinsic worth of a thing, while exchange value is often inflated by marketing and other nonsense. His proposed shift—an economy centered on use value rather than profit-driven fluff—makes perfect sense to me.

And yes, I agree with his call for degrowth—to step off the treadmill of superficial, unnecessary expansion. I agreeeee.

But here’s the catch: while I agree with many of his diagnoses, I can’t get behind his cure. His solution—what he calls “degrowth communism”—feels surprisingly tame.

He imagines a world led by worker cooperatives and essential-worker demonstrations. That’s it. (Tame, right?) He argues that it only takes 3–5% of the population to shift the system entirely. I can’t help but see the naivety there. In a world where 1% of the people control the resources, how can a movement of only 3-5% ever win without firstly addressing the inequality inherent in power distribution?

Even more puzzling, coming from Japan, he delves deep into Europe’s colonial sins but completely sidesteps his own country’s. Japan’s imperial legacy—still visible across Asia—never gets a mention. As someone who still admires Japanese thinkers despite those dark chapters (separating the colonizers with the humanist, neither knows skin color), I was disappointed that he didn’t engage with any Japanese intellectual lineage. I came hoping to read a Japanese mind, but what I found felt thoroughly Western—right down to the token nods to the Global South.

In the end, my verdict on Kohei Saito is this: he presents strong ideas, though not entirely his own (the concept of the Imperial Mode of Living, for example, belongs to Markus Wissen and Ulrich Brand). He curates them well, but his radicalism lacks bite. His “revolution” feels more like reform, and his detachment from his own cultural roots leaves his work—while intellectually stimulating—oddly hollow.

[Nike Norin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bokens teoretiska ramverk vilar på en SKÖR tråd - ett kortfattat brev Marx skrev i slutet av sitt liv som, enligt Saito, antyder att han släppt produktivismen och eurocentrismen som genomsyrar hans tidigare verk. Tadaaa! Plötsligt går marxismen att förena med miljörörelsen och vi kan lära oss av ”primitiva” länder utanför Europa med mer hållbara ekonomiska system.

Det teoretiska ramverket är viktigt för att se världen i ett nytt ljus, menar Saito, men argumenten i boken hade klart kunnat bäras upp helt utan hjälp av Marx. Jag älskar dock teoretiska genomgångar och för någon som inte är speciellt bekant med Marx är det här en ganska bra introduktion.

Bokens slutsats och poäng är att initiativ som grön Keynesianism och stagnerad tillväxt är otillräckliga om vi vill klara av klimatkrisen. Tyvärr kommer inte ett fully automated luxury communism där vi fortsätter leva våra liv som vanligt tack vare ny teknologi vara möjligt, vi måste reformera hela ekonomin och störta kapitalismen. Kapitalismen är roten till dagens klimatkris, och åtgärder inom kapitalismens ramar kommer därför aldrig att vara tillräckliga. Vi lever inte i Anthropocene, vi lever i Capitalocene!

[michelle]

Of the many climate books I’ve read over the past few years, I really enjoyed this one! Quite an interesting and thought-provoking introduction to degrowth as a concept, and a welcome change from the deluge of techno-optimism that’s been so pervasive in current climate conversations and on bookshelves (not my bag). As someone with quite a rudimentary understanding of Marxist theory, Saito presents his ideas with a lot of clarity... though sometimes reiterates to the point of bombardment. Generally, I think there’s a lot of value in how this book prompts you to think deeply about the perils of our current economic system (if you weren’t already) and ways of being (e.g., the imperial mode of living), and envision ways of doing things differently through a radical transformation in sites of production and labour—the root of our modern problems!

That being said, one critique. This book feels less like a manifesto, more like a recontextualization of Marxist theory in the Anthropocene. An interesting theoretical exercise, for sure, but it left many of his arguments lacking in nuance—including a meaningful engagement with the processes of industrialization that are taking place (necessarily so) in the Global South, and what rejecting the imperial mode of living and achieving climate justice really looks like under degrowth communism with regard to the millions globally who are urgently without energy access, face food insecurity, are dealing with extreme climate events regularly. As such, while Saito succeeds in fostering a lot of outrage in the reader (for me, at least), his call to action feels a bit insubstantial. It's definitely no road map.

Despite all this, I think it’s a book that’s well worth reading and sharing. Lots of great insights into topics like radical abundance, the commons, productivism, use value, decoupling, metabolic rift—for Marx heads and otherwise—that I’m excited to explore more in future readings.

[B · Rating 4 out of 5]

I’m a big fan of manifestos. They are known to have a forceful style of arguments, a devout passion by its author that oozes through each page, and a visionary goal to shake the status quo. This book is a typical manifesto indeed, in every positive meaning of the term.

Saito is an admirably erudite and proud Marxist, and; at a time when capitalism’s complete domination in all facets of our lives seems unchallenged and manifest, no less. It certainly takes guts to put together this wealth of research, and make an interesting case, knowing that many (I’d suspect the majority) readers may reject simply because they have been conditioned to perceive anything that has some form of association with Marx to be inefficient and sinister at best, and outright evil at worst. Indeed, it is no coincidence that the author (or the publisher!) has carefully skipped any reference to Marx in the title and subtitle of the book, even though it is a book heavily influenced by Marx.

Saito’s case is simple, and yet revolutionary (hence, the book fulfills a criterion to be called a “manifesto”!). He starts off by giving a proverbial slap on the face to those who think using paper bag rather than plastic ones (on an individual level) or implementing international initiatives like Green New Deals, or the sustainable development goals of the United Nations (on an international level) will solve our environmental issues. Instead, he argues that those (and similar other) actions only lull us into a false belief that we are making a difference, acting like a “Catholic indulgence” by relieving our conscience, and only get us farther from what should be done. Half-baked measures, and/or altering our mode of life within the confines of capitalism (or with cosmetic alterations to it) simply will not stop the serious environmental degradation we find ourselves in currently, as it is the essence of capitalism to continuously seek more resources and exploit them to attain its only goal (profit) at the expense of humans and nature/environment.

Saito unwaveringly concludes: We must break and do away with capitalism as completely and as soon as possible, mainly through the change of our modes of production to glue together the broken “metabolic link between humanity and nature,” because in his words, “environmental sustainability and unlimited economic growth are two things that can never go together.” After all, as he notes, “in a world in which capitalism has progressed as far as it has, isn’t it strange that so many living in Global North continue to languish in poverty, their lives only getting harder as time goes on?” It is interesting to note that, with this focus on production, Saito differentiates himself from the earlier critiques of capitalism who chose instead to target the consumption dimension of the equation that underpins our “imperial mode of living,” (his term)

To that end, he argues for a “degrowth communism,” (a concept similar to Piketty’s socialism participatif) which Saito believes is what Marx had in mind as the ultimate solution to resolve the problems created by capitalism at the end of his life – Marx never finished his magnus opus, the Capital, and careful studying of his notes and letters yield this conclusion.

Degrowth communism, aiming to establish a system based on mutual aid and self-governance, emphasizes prosperity and quality of life over growth and production. The system would include a number of institutions. These are, a restitution of the “commons” (places in England where local people, rather than just the lord or landowner, once had the right to access to public goods such as water, fish, pasture, wood etc. for collective or personal use); “municipalism” (the spirit of networking and solidarity across borders between reformist municipal bodies), the “private citizen-ization” (constructing small-scale power networks to amenable democratic management, free from the profit motive) and workers co’ops; and citizen assemblies (acting as a check against any authoritarian tendencies).

I have enjoyed all the chapters of the book and learned a great deal, both as “raw info” and as concepts.

For example, I did not know much about the existence of the Zapata and Via Campesina movements; that the cost of switching to electric cars would wreck the environment further in the process through exploitation of rare minerals for the production of batteries; that the top 10% of world’s rich was responsible for 50% of the carbon dioxide emissions. Nor did I know about the Lauderdale paradox (any increase in private riches comes about only through the diminishment of public wealth), the Jevons paradox (“a boomerang effect” resulting from a drop in price of a commodity, like coal, that may result in it being used in more ways than before, thereby increasing its consumption), the “Netherlands fallacy” (ignoring the transfer of burden of environmental impact onto a lesser developed country –called “displacement” in Marx lingo, and assuming that it solves environmental issues), etc.

More insightfully, I learned a lot about the concepts Marx came up with, such as the “primitive accumulation,” (the process of creating artificial scarcity by suppressing the abundance of current arrangements, such as the enclosure of the commons), the “use-value versus value” (the intrinsic value of a commodity versus its value in a market economy), “negation of negation” (negating the division of commons by capital by reclaiming the commons and restoring “radical abundance”), and many more…

Intellectually, I enjoyed the chapter where Saito traces the development of Marx’s thinking on capitalism (where he was focused on “productivism” earlier on, only to shift to his theory of “metabolic disruption” through his study of natural sciences, and communes of precapitalist and non-western societies, later) and the analyses of his solutions over his lifetime the most.

That said, Saito’s book has a few weaknesses. First, it is too scholastic for my taste, as it provides a “summary” at the end of each chapter, rehashing the points already made, so much so, that one is gone back to that dreaded high school class where the teacher keeps repeating the same point, just to drill it into everyone’s mind. Second, and somewhat concurrently, it draws too much from other writers that somewhat sap the work’s originality. Third, what starts off as a cohesive, and balanced argument on ecological economics acceleratingly spirals into a full-blown vindication of Marxist economics (not a bad thing in and of itself but…), and steers into the land of neverland, where his suggestions, while mostly laudable, seem misty at best in their feasibility in real life. Basing hopes for a “revolt of caring class” on a sprouting and noble community-driven initiative (the “Fearless cities” movement), or an equally commendable insertion of buen vivir as a state obligation into a constitution (Ecuador) may seem like a good start until the average reader begins to wonder… why he hasn’t heard of them before.

On the whole, an excellent work, only slightly tarnished by the author’s unrealistic belief in his own solutions ☹

[Chris Jones · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this book because of an interview with the author published by Gizmodo. I enjoyed the book, but I feel like I got just as much from the Gizmodo interview. This book makes a strong argument for the negative effects of capitalism, and presents a few examples of organizations and regions throughout the world that are working toward a more sustainable economic system. but I would have appreciated more concrete discussion about what specific steps the author thinks individuals should take to help bring about that change.

The author is a Marxist scholar, and a lot of the book is about his research into Marx’s unpublished journals. The author’s argument is that all of Marx’s published work is growth-focused, but late in life Marx shifted his thinking toward degrowth. As someone who has not studied Marxism outside of high school history class, I found myself putting this book down to google requisite knowledge frequently. This is an interesting discussion and I learned a lot from it, but it took up far too much of the book and felt too academic for the audience.

[Arno · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very accessible marxist-socialist critique and defense of degrowth. Saito, himself a marx-scholar, radically reinterprets the late Marx in an ecological light. Together with the fact that decoupling (economic growth from emissions) is not feasible and a critique of productivism, he concludes that degrowth is a necessity but also a possibility within a marxist framework. By shifting from a economy based on exchange-value and scarcity, towards one based on use-value and the abundance of the commons, we can radically change our course and build a better world. Some other pillars of his degrowth communism are the reduction of working hours, abolishing the uniform division of labor, prioritizing essential work and democratizing the production process. He look towards worker coops and citizen's assemblies as potential sites of leverage to get there.
The most important part, I think, of this book is mainly expanding our political imagination, and by welding the climate struggle and marxism together in a coherent way.
Fully planned solarpunk communism, or barbarism!

[Seán Mee · Rating 2 out of 5]

To begin with, a nice, accessible (if also quite simplistic) introduction to the contradictions between capitalistic growth and attempts to combat climate change.

The real problem is Saito's mischaracterization of Marx and communism as an idea in general in order to placate liberal readers by distancing him from historical social movements. Marx, of course, put forward tools for analysing and critiquing these very things, but you would not know that by reading this.

Saito decides to use the word communism where it clearly does not apply, seemingly calling for worker self management and a return to the commons, without really saying how this can be achieved. The question of the state is simply ignored. I'm not sure how this analysis can be called Marxist in good faith.

Disappointingly bad. Two stars.