Nèdeem Elmahjoub's blog

In a nutshell, the climate  negotiations “are predicated on a contradiction: the task of agreeing a programme of radical global economic transformation is allocated to those – including, this year, a record 2,500 fossil fuel industry representatives – who stand to lose the most from disrupting the current economic model. For the most influential in these negotiations – the titans of finance, energy giants, and the wealthy states who protect their interests – the solution to this dilemma is to find a way to transform the foundations of global capitalism, from energy to agriculture and from transport to industry, while preserving everything else about its social relations and overarching dynamics. Theirs is necessarily a future in which the transition to a decarbonised and ecologically sustainable economy implies no trade-off with continued growth, profit maximisation, private ownership or accumulation: in short, from fossil capitalism to a green capitalism. For some, green capitalism is

Nature and Revolution in Marcuse’s Philosophy of Praxis

"The climate and ecological crisis cannot be solved within today's political and economic systems", the Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg argues . "That isn't an opinion. That's a fact,” she added. I agree with you, Greta. The question is: what is the nature of the alternative political and economic system?  Capitalism is a very dynamic system albeit destructive, and not only to nature but also to human body and soul. But it always seeks a way to mitigate that destruction for its own survival. Advances in technology and productivity are contradicted with obscene inequality and different forms of violence by state and non-state agencies. I think that capitalism and capitalist institutions will be able in the short term to delay a climate catastrophe or minimise its impact on the rich countries. In the long term, however, the contradictions of the system are manyfold and there is no room for optimism.