Radical Abundance How to Win a Green Democratic Future
We live in a world of bullshit abundance where we have too much of what we don’t need and too little of what we do. Through this system’s pursuit of profits, we have been put on a collision course with social and ecological limits that can no longer be ignored. So argue Kai Heron, Keir Milburn and Bertie Russell in Radical Abundance from Pluto Press.
The authors are humble enough to acknowledge the shoulders they stand on, and the rich heritage of thinking they have emerged from including Ecosocialism, Degrowth Marxism, and Post-Growth Economics.
“We are far from the first to talk about radical abundance in these terms” they write. “In fact, the pursuit of radical abundance lies at the heart of the communist tradition. As the Hungarian philosopher István Mészáros summarises ‘Marx envisages as the material basis of the emancipated society as world of ‘abundance’. i.e. conditions under which the struggle for the necessarilly iniquitous appropriation of scare resources no longer determines the life-activity of individuals.”
“For his part, Jason Hickel argues that ‘capitalism transforms even the most spectacular productivity gains not into abundance and human freedom, but into new forms of artificial scarcity.’ Philosopher Kohei Saito proposes that the way to radical abundance is through the establishment of a commons – or collective ownership of what we need to live and flourish in and against capitalism’s privatised and nationalised forms of ownership.”
“Recent research has suggestion that such a transformation is technically possible. In a hypothetical ‘post-transformation’ economy, the needs of up to 10.4 billion people (current population is around 8.2 billion) might be met – which is to say everything from food and water to housing, heathcare, and education – without transgressing various planetary boundaries such as ozone depletion, biodiversity loss, soil erosion, and of course CO2 emissions.”
Radical abundance is possible if we want it, argue Heron, Milburn and Russell.
The focus of Radical Abundance is therefore on the how of transition and transformation drawing on traditions of anti-imperialism, Europe’s new municipalism movement, and Latin American (and American) experiments with communal self-governance.
The author’s define themselves between and beyond those arguing for a ‘Green New Deal’ within capitalism, and the ‘thin veneer’ of concern for the non-human world. Instead they argue for a revolutionary transformation in how we relate to one another and non-human nature. And they have a more radical vision of democracy.
“By democracy we don’t mean today’s moribund bourgeois system of representative democracy. What we have in mind is a future where we collectively and democratically plan our collective reproduction; where capital’s control over what is produced, where, and by whom is dismantled and replaced with a new communal system of production.”
Meet Keir Milburn and discuss these ideas at Lighthouse Books, Wednesday, April 8, 7pm
Lighthouse | Radical Abundance: Keir Milburn on How to Win a Green Democratic Future
We are supported only by our readers. We don't have corporate backers and we don't take advertising, so we rely entirely on your support.
Help to support independent Scottish journalism
This is all very well but it makes me think that no doubt there were all sorts of political theorists still arguing a case as they boarded the cattle trucks to the concentrartion camp.
Because that is where ae already are. The rulers of the world are demonstrating, right now, that they see themselves as above any intellectual or moral discussion or constraint whatsoever, as entitled to do as they please. The rule of law, and any ethics at all, simply do not apply to them. So if not to some, not to any.
Trump and Netenyahu are already committing mass murder, riunding up torturing and killing innocent people, demanding that the world hand over all its resources to them and their friends. The techno-fascists are still opursuing their dystopian ‘Great Reset’. And our politicvians, iour legl profession and police, are either complicit or at least too afraid to stand up to this madness But they are all merely the expresion of a deep-seated nihilism that will destroy us all if we don’t do something.
We just need to say no. That we do not agree, we do not comply, we do not submit.
There is an election coming up here in Scotland. It looks to me like an Orwellian circus. Everyone seems to be bought and sold for oligarch gold., So here’s a practical suggestion. Why not aslk all candidates,
“I have a few questions for you if you want my vote. I will only vote for a candidate who will make the following commitments
1. To democracy
Please confirm that you are standing for Parliament to represent me, my community and the people of Scotland, and to speak up for us, and the life-support system (the ecosystem) on which we depend for our survival. And that the needs of constituents, people and planet will always come first, before party loyalty or private profit. ‘Private affluence and public squalor’ is simply corruption.
Whether you think we are ‘better together’ in the Union or not, I need an absolute commitment to the principle that all authorities in Scotland rule by consent of the governed and are accountable to the people they exist to serve. That includes the monarchy.
Please confirm that due democratic processes may not be ignored or over-ridden, under any circumstances. That includes planning, public health and environmental protection, and the precautionary principle.
Real democracy means ‘subsidiarity’, decentralisation of power and wealth. Small is beautiful, accountability must be local as well as national and international. The role of central government is to provide balance and fair distribution of resources according to need.
2. The rule of law
Please confirm that you will uphold the rule of law. That all are equal before the law, and all have equal access to it. No more ‘crown immunity’ or any other loopholes in the above principle. All must have free and equal access to legal representation if necessary. The present Ombudsman and Industry Regulator system is not fit for purpose.
The rule of law requires a genuinely impartial judiciary and open and honest government. Any potential conflicts of interest must be made public. There is no justification for secrecy of any kind.
3. The economy
Society is an interconnected, biological ecosystem, not a computer that can be ‘reset’. It includes everyone, and it depends on all non-human life too. The planet cannot be ‘saved’ by destroying it further. No more lies.
Monopolies of any kind are not in the public interest. All natural monopolies must be publicly owned and under local democratic control – including the infrastructure needed for water, energy, transport and telecommunications. We can no longer be held to ransom by multinational corporations and their billiionaire owners.
If none of you will make these commitments I will spoil my ballot. Voting for a ‘least worst’ candidate is not good enough.”
How are the obvious tensions between Green planet and Democracy to be resolved? Why is the Earth conceived of essentially as a place for humans to live on? What does it mean to reject Capitalism but preserve Ownership? Why do these authors talk about a Means-focused political system as the way to bring about Ends? Why is Will still prioritised over Health?
#biocracynow
How are the obvious tensions between Green planet and Democracy to be resolved? The tensions are not obvious to me. Please clarify.
Why is the Earth conceived of essentially as a place for humans to live on? Why indeed? It is simply 18th / 19th /20th c philosophy and economics, that gave us capitalism, colonialism, etc. It is an idea that has run out of road. What does it mean to reject Capitalism but preserve Ownership? To answer that question, what you actually mean by Capitalism and Ownership? Why do these authors talk about a Means-focused political system as the way to bring about Ends? I’ve no idea! Why is Will still prioritised over Health? Because it’s about power and wealth as their own reward, and the only reward that matters. It’s the belief that might is right, we all (supposedly) struggle endlessly against all for survival and dominance, and to demonstrate that we are ‘winners’ in this pointless fight rather than ‘losers’. Because the survival of the fittest, supposedly is the survival of the nastiest, most ruthless and reckless. It’;s the basis of fascism.
Fortunately Trump and his mates are now demonstratring that those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.
@John Wood, see also Norway’s interspecies councils:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/apr/10/im-worried-theres-too-much-of-me-says-a-birch-inside-the-interspecies-council-giving-nature-a-voice
although that’s not quite how I imagine a fully-functional upscaled biocracy will operate.
My point was that Democracy prioritises (indeed, fetishises) Will, and focuses on Means not Ends (as long as a decision is reached democratically, where does any challenge come from?). This is essentially why political constitutions are created. And why it is so important not to confuse the Rule of Law with Democracy.
What are the tensions between Green planet and Democracy?
@Editor, or indeed Blue Planet. Why would anyone have faith in democracy (or any humanisms or theisms) as a means of sustaining the health of our living planet? But if you want to approach this via a thought experiment and then a series on democracy’s flaws (to which I have many more to add), you can start with:
https://blog.sleepingdog.org.uk/2024/03/the-sea-peoples-citizen-assembly.html
(the envisaged scenario later appears in recent televised science fiction drama, perhaps that’s just coincidence)
and continue on the ‘biocracy’ tag.
Of course the cornucopia humans are now bestowing on the planet consists largely of a cocktail of toxins, and myriad ways for nonhumans to die, which is an abundance of sorts, I guess. It could be worse, and it will be.