Abstract
The contradictions detailed in the previous chapter suggest that neoliberalism, although still hegemonic in the North, and dominant in the South, is increasingly crisis prone and subject, therefore, to a variety of resistances. Some of these are ‘systemic’ or sub-hegemonic (reformist), reflecting the interest of states, in conjunction with more nationally focused fractions of capital, in re-asserting national sovereignty, whilst others are ‘anti-systemic’ or counter-hegemonic (revolutionary) and seek a post-developmental path in which food sovereignty, agro-ecology, and social equity are of central importance. Still others may be described as ‘alter-hegemonic’, lying somewhere between these two positions, and advocating above all localism and ‘ecologization’. We are therefore passing through a crucial period, socio-politically and ecologically, in which a number of alternative politico-ecological discourses and systems, some systemic and others anti-systemic, are being defined and contested. As I argue in this chapter, more interventionist forms of capitalism (neo-productivism in the global North, neo-developmentalism in the global South) appear likely in the shorter term, and have indeed emerged already in Europe, and in Latin America, particularly. But while these models may address some issues to do with social inequality and demand-side crisis, they cannot overcome capital’s linear, entropic, and imperialistic dynamic (Biel, The entropy of capitalism. Haymarket Books, Chicago, 2012; Exner et al, Land and resource scarcity: capitalism, struggle, and well-being in a world without fossil fuels. Routledge, London, 2013). (This argument differs profoundly from that developed by writers such as Rifkin (2014). He uses a non-Marxian argument to argue, as Marx did, that competitive pressure forces capital to innovate and reduce labour costs through adoption of labour substituting technology which, ceteris paribus, raises the organic composition of capital and progressively reduces profits. Rifkin suggests that the ‘zero marginal cost’ (extreme cheapness of commodities) prefigures a new ‘commons’ based on the abundance of such ‘commodities’. There are a number of flaws in his argument: (1) while the argument about ‘zero marginal cost’ is correct as an ‘internal’ tendency (as Marx argued) it ignores the reactions by capital provoked by this trend, most obviously the rise of neoliberalism and its logic of sustaining profit by moving to cheap labour locations—globalization is basically a response to this tendency; (2) ironically, while Rifkin’s argument is supposedly based on ecological arguments—entropy law—in actuality the proposed Internet of Things (IoT) is based precisely on the externalization of the real costs associated with the ‘knowledge economy’. In other words, the IoT is not actually de-materialized at all—it is an energy- and materials-intensive mode of production. The majority of those ‘hidden’ environmental costs are externalized onto the global South, where the bulk of the materials for IoT are produced. So, the abundance he refers to is in fact an unsustainable abundance based on the illusion of de-materialization; (3) so while Rifkin’s argument is basically about an ‘internal’ process of capital—the rise in the organic composition of capital—ironically it ignores capital’s ‘external’ dynamic as being premised on ecological affordances/constraints—ironic because ecology is supposed to be at the forefront of his analysis. But it is, in fact, evacuated —unlike the argument developed in this paper. A truly sustainable society would need to be established at a much lower level of consumption than the one he envisages, in accordance with the real entropic constraints of the planet.) In other words, they remain locked within capitalism as reformism, and, while attempting to address some aspects of contradiction, ‘political’ or ‘ecological’, they simply reproduce the overall contradictory nature of capitalism’s social-property relations. In moving, tendentially, from neoliberalism to a more interventionist form of capitalism, akin to Polanyi’s ‘double movement’, the system is encountering, and attempting to resolve, a developmental crisis. But as the resulting modes of reformism fail, as they undoubtedly will, to resolve the continuing contradictory trajectory of capitalism, so an epochal crisis will loom, precipitated by a ‘political’ under-consumption crisis, an ‘ecological’ over-production crisis, and anticipated by the reflexive political resistances of the subaltern classes.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
This argument differs profoundly from that developed by writers such as Rifkin (2014). He uses a non-Marxian argument to argue, as Marx did, that competitive pressure forces capital to innovate and reduce labour costs through adoption of labour substituting technology which, ceteris paribus, raises the organic composition of capital and progressively reduces profits. Rifkin suggests that the ‘zero marginal cost’ (extreme cheapness of commodities) prefigures a new ‘commons’ based on the abundance of such ‘commodities’. There are a number of flaws in his argument: (1) while the argument about ‘zero marginal cost’ is correct as an ‘internal’ tendency (as Marx argued) it ignores the reactions by capital provoked by this trend, most obviously the rise of neoliberalism and its logic of sustaining profit by moving to cheap labour locations—globalization is basically a response to this tendency; (2) ironically, while Rifkin ’s argument is supposedly based on ecological arguments—entropy law—in actuality the proposed Internet of Things (IoT) is based precisely on the externalization of the real costs associated with the ‘knowledge economy’. In other words, the IoT is not actually de-materialized at all—it is an energy and materials intensive mode of production. The majority of those ‘hidden’ environmental costs are externalized onto the global South, where the bulk of the materials for IoT are produced. So, the abundance he refers to is in fact an unsustainable abundance based on the illusion of de-materialization; (3) so while Rifkin ’s argument is basically about an ‘internal’ process of capital—the rise in the organic composition of capital—ironically it ignores capital’s ‘external’ dynamic as being premised on ecological affordances/constraints—ironic because ecology is supposed to be at the forefront of his analysis. But it is, in fact, evacuated —unlike the argument developed in this paper. A truly sustainable society would need to be established at a much lower level of consumption than the one he envisages, in accordance with the real entropic constraints of the planet.
- 2.
- 3.
Autonomist approaches advocate grassroots struggle ‘outside’ bourgeois forms of the state and a withdrawal to local ‘autonomous’ zones of resistance (e.g., Zapatistas in Mexico, MST in Brazil); dual powers approaches consider it premature to call for a dispersion of power before power has been secured—the strategy here is to radically transform the state in order then to disperse power downwards.
- 4.
Ecologically, agro-ecology advocates an ‘approach to farming that attempts to provide sustainable yields through the use of ecologically sound management technologies. Strategies rely on ecological concepts, such that management results in optimum recycling of nutrients and organic matter, closed energy flows, balanced pest populations and enhanced multiple [multifunctional] use of landscape’ (Altieri 1987, xiv). Socially, agro-ecology elaborates a broader agenda ‘through forms of social action which redirect the course of co-evolution between nature and society in order to address the crisis of modernity. This is to be achieved by systemic strategies that control the development of the forces and relations of production that have caused this crisis. Central to such strategies is the local dimension where we encounter endogenous potential encoded in knowledge systems (local, peasant or indigenous) that demonstrate and promote both ecological and cultural diversity’ (Sevilla Guzman and Woodgate 1999, 83).
- 5.
The following assertions seem most pertinent here: ‘[Food sovereignty] ensures that the rights to use and manage lands, territories, waters, seeds, livestock and biodiversity are in the hands of those of us who produce food. Food sovereignty implies new social relations free of oppression and inequality between men and women, peoples, racial groups, social and economic classes and generations.’
- 6.
Defined as a community of people living together and practicing common ownership, sometimes in reference to communal forms of organization that preceded the modern state, for example, the ayllu in the Andes. We should be wary, however, of de-historicizing and idealizing such ‘traditional’ and customary forms of social organization, these being frequently inegalitarian, patriarchal, and embedded in wider systems of hierarchy such as the Incan state. As Amin (2015, 23) notes, ‘there is no reason to heap excessive praise upon these traditional rights as a number of anti-imperialist, nationalist ideologies unfortunately do.’
References
Alonso-Fradejas, A., S.M. Borras, T. Holmes, E. Holt-Gimenez, and M.J. Robbins. 2015. Food Sovereignty: Convergence and Contradictions, Conditions and Challenges. Third World Quarterly 36 (3): 431–448.
Altieri, M. 1987. Agroecology: The Scientific Basis of Alternative Agriculture. Boulder: Westview Press.
———. 1995. Agroecology: The Science of Sustainable Agriculture. Boulder: Westview Press.
Amin, S. 2012. Contemporary Imperialism and the Agrarian Question. Agrarian South: Journal of Political Economy 1 (1): 11–26.
———. 2015. Food Sovereignty and the Agrarian Question: Constructing Convergence of Struggles Within Diversity. In The Struggle for Food Sovereignty: Alternative Development and the Renewal of Peasant Societies Today, ed. R. Herrera and K.C. Lau, 14–34. London: Pluto Press.
Araghi, F. 2009a. Accumulation by Displacement: Global Enclosures, the Food Crisis, and the Ecological Contradictions of Capitalism. Review XXXII (1): 113–146.
Badgley, C., J. Moghtader, E. Quintero, E. Zakem, M. Chappell, K. Aviles-Vazquez, A. Samulon, and I. Perfecto. 2007. Organic Agriculture and the Global Food Supply. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 22: 86–108.
Bernstein, S. 2002. The Compromise of Liberal Environmentalism. New York: Columbia University Press.
Bernstein, H. 2010. The Class Dynamics of Agrarian Change. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing.
———. 2014. Food Sovereignty via the ‘Peasant Way’: A Sceptical View. The Journal of Peasant Studies 41 (6): 1031–1063.
Biel, R. 2012. The Entropy of Capitalism. Chicago: Haymarket Books.
Bond, P., and A. Garcia. 2015. BRICS: An Anti-capitalist Critique. London: Pluto Press.
Edelman, M. 2014. Food Sovereignty: Forgotten Genealogies and Future Regulatory Challenges. The Journal of Peasant Studies 41 (6): 959–978.
Exner, A., P. Fleissner, L. Kranzl, and W. Zittel, eds. 2013. Land and Resource Scarcity: Capitalism, Struggle, and Well-Being in a World Without Fossil Fuels. London: Routledge.
Geddes, M. 2015. Marxist State Theory and the Debate on Statism in Bolivia. Paper presented at the Historical Materialism Conference, SOAS, London.
Gill, S. 2002. Power and Resistance in the New World Order. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Giunta, I. 2014. Food Sovereignty in Ecuador: Peasant Struggles and the Challenges of Institutionalization. Journal of Peasant Studies 41 (6): 1201–1224.
Goodman, D., E.M. DuPuis, and M.K. Goodman. 2012. Alternative Food Networks: Knowledge, Practice, and Politics. London: Routledge.
Gramsci, A. 1971. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. New York: International Publishers.
Gudynas, E. 2012. Estado compensador y nuevos extractivismos: las ambivalencias del progresismo sudamericano. Nueva Sociedad 237: 128–146.
Holt-Gimenez, E., and A. Shattuck. 2011. Food Crises, Food Regimes and Food Movements: Rumblings of Reform or Tides of Transformation? Journal of Peasant Studies 38: 109–144.
Kitchen, L., and T. Marsden. 2009. Creating Sustainable Rural Development Through Stimulating the Eco-Economy: Beyond the Eco-Economic Paradox? Sociologia Ruralis 49 (3): 273–294.
Marsden, T., and R. Sonnino. 2008. Rural Development and the Regional State: Denying Multi-functional Agriculture in the UK. Journal of Rural Studies 24 (4): 422–431.
McKeon, N. 2015. Food Security Governance: Empowering Communities, Regulating Corporations. Abingdon: Routledge.
McMichael, P. 2010. Agrofuels in the Food Regime. Journal of Peasant Studies 37 (4): 609–629.
McMichael, P., and M. Schneider. 2011. Food Security Politics and the Millennium Development Goals. Third World Quarterly 32 (1): 119–139.
Mooers, C. 2014. Imperial Subjects: Citizenship in an Age of Crisis and Empire. London: Bloomsbury.
Moyo, S., and P. Yeros, eds. 2005. Reclaiming the Land: The Resurgence of Rural Movements in Africa, Asia and Latin America. London: Zed Press.
———, eds. 2011. Reclaiming the Nation: The Return of the National Question in Africa, Asia and Latin America. London: Pluto Press.
Picq, M. 2014. Self-Determination as Anti-extractivism: How Indigenous Resistance Challenges International Relations. Bristol: E- International Relations Publishing.
Potter, C., and M. Tilzey. 2005. Agricultural Policy Discourses in the European Post-Fordist Transition: Neo-liberalism, Neo-mercantilism and Multifunctionality. Progress in Human Geography 29: 581–601.
Poulantzas, N. 1975. Classes in Contemporary Capitalism. London: New Left Books.
Perfecto, I., J. Vandermeer, and A. Wright. 2009. Nature’s Matrix: Linking Agriculture, Conservation, and Food Sovereignty. London: Earthscan.
Rifkin, J. 2014. The Zero Marginal Cost Society: The Internet of Things, the Collaborative Commons, and the Eclipse of Capitalism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sevilla Guzman, E., and G. Woodgate. 1999. From Farming Systems Research to Agroecology. In Technical and Social Systems Approaches to Sustainable Rural Development. Brussels: European Commission.
Spronk, S., and J. Webber. 2015. Crisis and Contradiction: Marxist Perspectives on Latin America in the Global Economy. Chicago: Haymarket Books.
Tilzey, M. 2002. Conservation and Sustainability. In The Sustainability of Rural Systems: Geographical Interpretations, ed. I. Bowler, C. Bryant, and C. Cocklin, 147–168. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
———. 2006. Neo-liberalism, the WTO and New Modes of Agri-Environmental Governance in the EU, USA and Australia. International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food 14 (1): 1–28.
———. 2016a. Global Politics, Capitalism, Socio-ecological Crisis, and Resistance: Exploring the Linkages and the Challenges. Colloquium Paper No. 14. Global Governance/Politics, Climate Justice & Agrarian/Social Justice: Linkages and Challenges: An International Colloquium, 4–5 February 2016. ISS, The Hague.
———. 2016b. Reintegrating Economy, Society, and Environment for Cooperative Futures: Polanyi, Marx, and Food Sovereignty. Journal of Rural Studies. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.12.004.
Tilzey, M., and C. Potter. 2008. Productivism Versus Post-productivism? : Modes of Agri-Environmental Governance in Post-Fordist Agricultural Transitions. In Sustainable Rural Systems: Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Communities, ed. G. Robinson, 41–63. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Tittonell, P. 2014. Food Security and Ecosystem Services in a Changing World: It Is Time for Agroecology? Paper Presented to the International Symposium on Agroecology for Food Security and Nutrition, FAO, Rome, September 2014.
Van der Ploeg, J. 2008. The New Peasantries: Struggles for Autonomy and Sustainability in an Era of Empire and Globalization. London: Earthscan.
Veltmeyer, H., and J. Petras, eds. 2014. The New Extractivism: A Post-Neoliberal Development Model or Imperialism of the Twenty-First Century? London: Zed Press.
Via Campesina. 2000. Declaration of the International Meeting of the Landless in San Pedro Sula, Honduras, July.
———. 2003. What Is Food Sovereignty? January 15. Available at www.viacampesina.org
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Tilzey, M. (2018). Crisis and Resistance: Reform or Revolution?. In: Political Ecology, Food Regimes, and Food Sovereignty. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64556-8_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64556-8_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-64555-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-64556-8
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)