This book doesn't provide a globally functioning solution that can simply replace the currently running system(s), because the complex interconnected local and global structures don't allow for a logistical or societal 'copy-paste approach': “The point is not to build consensus around a blueprint, an impossible proposition on a global scale.”
In the first two chapters, Gelderloos provides a ton of research on the massive corruption behind 'green' politics and economics. Ranging from the naïve environmentalism that focuses solely on the individual consumer, to the $200 million of lobbying coming from the five biggest oil and gas companies to interrupt, control, delay or block climate-motivated policy, over to the 'tricks' with which so-called developed nations blame their emissions on developing countries (Net-zero marketing). He also goes into the subsidies for the fossil fuel industry, neocolonial practices of NGOs, failures of reformism, the fraudulent Paris Agreement and the connected desperate but reductive methods to reach the proposed 'goals', and the patchworkesque stacking of new tech in response to all kind of problems without addressing the very deep roots of many of these occurring cracks in the system.
Later, Gelderloos provides historical accounts and interviews from various repressed and colonized groups. One of the primary points he attempts to emphasize is that the fundamental foundation of the present system is racist and oppressive for a nearly uncountable amount of people. The system came into being and runs until today because of its exploitation of millions. Be it the miners, sweatshops, cheap wageworkers, women under patriarchal pressures or the overall non-human nature itself. He also writes about a lot of the affected local people from all over the world (Brazil, India, Chile, Kenya ...) that have been expelled from their own indigenous lands by the industrial nations, disrupting locally flourishing ecological systems for pseudo-renewable solutions and profit-making. Over the course of these moving stories, we also get to know different solutions to the current state of affairs. It's about local action, working with the ecological system one is situated in, being conscious about the internalized values and traits of the capitalistic system, while at the same time trying to look out for communities that are already fighting and trying to see who could use our help.
The book also highly values a practical (but also spiritual) perception of the interconnected relations of all the things surrounding us, citing one of my favorite passages from the fifth chapter:
“A huge amount of resources have been spent to make it impossible for us to imagine a world free of capitalism, free of hierarchy, free of the institutions that originated in colonialism. As such, the only kind of imaginary that is articulated and practiced in dominant society is that of the technocratic engineer drafting blueprints onto a passive territory. One of the most potent weapons against such interventionism is situated imagining, looking at the world around us, tracing the relations we have and could have, listening to their needs, and giving those needs free rein to develop, to see what directions they pull us in. If you did not take your eyes off the page after reading that, do so. Give yourself a moment to understand what I’m really getting at. “The world around us” is not an abstract figure. It means the ground underneath your feet. It means the organisms that provide the air you breathe, and the machines that poison it. It means the food in your pantry or refrigerator, the machines that gave it its present form. The land this food comes from, and perhaps other land, much closer at hand, from which it could come, but does not. And the why of it all.”
I believe this to be one of the most important aspects to consider for our current situations, not just on a societal and communal level, but also on an individual level. A lot of the problems we face seem to be perceived as simple isolated problems, without any sort of relations or roots. Problems that just need a plaster to resolve themselves, which I believe just causes even greater harm.
Aside from all this, Peter also writes a ton about activism, decentralized action, the (not so much media covered) successes of these and protestors, possibilities of communication and his overall passionate position on and for life.
My only criticism is that to me there seems to be the somewhat rushed over implications of it not being applicable 'solutions' in the global-discourse sense, but solutions for and from the smaller communities. I am aware that this is among other things the point of the book, that there isn't the grand solution to it all, which is something I was convinced of even before going into this book anyway, but I still remain quite skeptical of the availability of these proposed communal local approaches for all around the globe, especially with the huge amount of humans living in certain regions. But I am sure Gelderloos is aware of this, and despite what I am criticizing here, there still is an effort of sharing ideas for global action. There is a longer hopeful passage in the text that very much discusses the possibility of the replacement of capitalism on a global scale and what a society like this could look like in a future scenario (which again in his words is just a (inclusive) vision, not a blueprint), but it is (for good reason) much more abstract than rest.
Overall, I deem this book as incredibly important and cheer the immense optimism and call for action. It touches so many important topics and points in such a concise manner that I can nothing but recommend this to anyone interested in ecological (and anarchist) thought.
A few more passages I enjoyed:
“[...] to communicate horizontally or circularly, to use only what really is ours and to influence others, to understand that not everyone is going to act as we act; that is the beauty of rebellion, and our effectiveness in it does not lie in making the whole world equal, but in devising the best way to relate in a complementary way [...] ”
“People today whose survival is currently guaranteed by racial capitalism will go along like good citizens with this chain of atrocities that, in terms of scale, is at least one order of magnitude more lethal than World War II, many of them will agree with the newscasters and the politicians who warn of the twin dangers of fascist and antifascist extremists, and then later, after watching the latest historical documentary, will ask themselves how so many “good Germans” could have let the Holocaust happen. And yet inevitably, whether ten or a hundred years from now, when most people recognize that today’s politicians, millionaires, industry leaders, and many scientists as well were in fact mass murderers, they will play the facile ethical game of asking whether it would be, hypothetically, justified to go back in time to kill some of these monsters, if it might make a difference in affecting the course of history. This is another aspect of punitive justice: it takes the pursuit of justice out of our hands and turns us into spectators. And when we cannot right the wrongs we see all around us, the typical response is to stop seeing them.”
“Putting an end to a system that by its very nature produces misery would be the best future for all of us. If we fight in a way that is consistent with the world we want to defend, then every step we take, even if we don’t make it all the way, leaves the world a better place and could make the difference between life and death for a person, a community, an ecosystem, that right now is under threat. Recognizing that we live only thanks to a beautiful web of relationships with countless other beings, nurturing those relationships, is the best possible way to live. It is a revolution that transforms our present, honors our past, and offers the best hope for ending an apocalypse that has been going on for too long, moving towards a future where we can all, finally, begin to heal.”
“[...] growth is not only a material and economic process with social and ecological costs, but also a hegemonic idea that obscures more ecologically friendly and egalitarian alternatives.”
“The problem with the “believe science” slogan is that it presents scientific research as a neutral, harmonious process. Critiquing science as it exists today—the web of institutions, funding and employment opportunities, and research agendas inseparable from the cultural priorities and prejudices of those who design them—is not a rejection of empirical knowledge production or any conceivable iteration of scientific institutions that might exist in alternate universes. It is a way to unmask the mythology that presents science as a pure synonym for knowledge and to talk about what is actually happening right now, and what needs to happen.”