1. This is really presumptuous of me, and I’m an amateur in the field, but reading through the most popular definitions of capitalism, it seems that almost all them airbrush its true nature to some degree. Could we, together, develop a better one, in one sentence?
Thread/
2. I’m probably deceiving myself, but this feels to me like a tight definition. Unfortunately it’s likely to be incomprehensible to almost everyone:
“Capitalism is an economic system that constantly creates and ruptures its own hypervolume.”
3. This draws on a crucial ecological concept, developed by GE Hutchinson in 1957: the n-dimensional hypervolume. Here’s the presentation in which he explains it: www2.unil.ch/biomapper/Down…
4. Plainly, this won’t do, as any definition should be self-explanatory. So here’s a stab at something more comprehensible. It’s probably rubbish, so please improve it:
5. “Capitalism is an economic system founded in colonial expropriation, that operates along a constantly shifting and self-consuming frontier, on which natural wealth, labour and money are commodified and common resources captured by private interests.”
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. The one benefit of Brexit was a new farm subsidy system, paying for public goods like ecological restoration. But now the government has frozen the new grants, while swiftly cutting off the old ones, leaving farmers high and dry. It's deeply unfair and highly destructive. 🧵
2. It will leave farmers who started investing in restoration out of pocket, and destroy their faith in the green transition. The sharpness of the transition will drive some to bankruptcy.
3. Two obvious questions:
A. What is the government playing at?
B. Where are the big environmental NGOs who asked for this transition, but are now failing to defend it? Why are they not raising hell about this betrayal?
1. People are objecting to my lashing of academics and intellectuals in today's column. I understand this. Here’s my reasoning. I chose examples of topics that are endlessly circled by researchers with ever diminishing returns, while huge and existential questions are ignored.🧵
2. I see the obsession with the Bloomsbury Group etc as highfalutin celebrity culture. The effort and attention spent on it, in scholarship, publishing and reviews, seems to me to signal a deep sickness at the heart of intellectual endeavour. It has a name. Denial.
3. It reminds me of Eliot’s comparison of the mindless gossip in the pub with the mindless gossip in the high society salon in Part II of The Wasteland:
"‘Are you alive, or not? Is there nothing in your head?’
But O O O O that Shakespeherian Rag -
It’s so elegant
So intelligent"
1. A few days ago, I wrote a thread about the pros and cons of staying on this platform and asked for your views. They were very helpful. As a result, I’ve decided to stop using X from January 20. Already I’m mostly posting now on BlueSky (@georgemonbiot.bsky.social) instead.🧵
2. I won’t delete this account, as I don’t want to lose the archive. But I won’t post anything here after then. Will you join me in setting January 20th (a significant date) for the Xodus?
3. I thought for a while that the best alternative would be Threads. But Meta’s deliberate downgrading of political content and suspension of journalists on Threads rules it out as a prime platform for people like me. .theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
1. Who really won the US election? The fossil fuel companies and other polluting industries. We scarcely heard about them during the election campaign, which is just how they like it. Almost everything we *did* hear about was a distraction from the real agenda. 🧵
2. Trump’s campaign was an economic war against the interests of almost everyone on Earth, on behalf of the planet’s most powerful and destructive industries. But it was dressed up, as always, as a culture war: a trick that has been used to great effect for more than a century.
3. It’s not as if Biden/Harris were seriously curtailing polluting industries, especially oil and gas. It’s shocking how little Harris even mentioned the existential threat to humanity that climate breakdown presents. But now? It’s a free-for-all.
1. Here are my thoughts on the pros and cons of staying on this platform.
Pro: We were here long before Musk took it over. We built this.
Con: He has used our creation to help elect a far-right autocrat, and build his own grim political career.
🧵
2. Pro: We should never cede any space, real or virtual, to the far right. Fascist trolls are trying to drive us out. Don't give them the satisfaction.
Con: Our presence could be used to legitimise a far-right hellsite.
3. Pro: It remains, amid the viciousness, a good place to share information, ideas and opinions.
Con: It is also an abysmal, dispiriting place to inhabit, the humour, lightness and kindness crushed by bots and trolls.
1. My column on what happened, what comes next, and just how easy our fake democracies are to overthrow. + short thread on where our remaining hopes lie. theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
2. People seek to destroy what they feel excluded from. Centralised “democracies” exclude all but a rarefied circle from genuine power. Centralised democracy is a contradiction in terms.
3. Disempowered people tend to be profoundly unimpressed by “rational arguments” for this faction or for that one: they have an entirely reasonable desire – however unreasonable its expression may be – to kick the system over.