I have been a student of the climate crisis since 2016, initially focusing on its economics by reading mainstream work from environmental economists and the conventional economic analyses of climate change. Unsatisfied with their methods which are overly focused on monetary figures and too far removed from life-supporting systems, I found ecological economics to be a mindful transition aligned with planetary boundaries. Ecological economics provides tools to assess how much quantitative change is required and what the limits and impacts are, but it lacks guidance on how to get there, how to articulate a theory of change, and how to understand power dynamics. Political ecology and degrowth have helped me a lot, yet too little has been written on how to dismantle capitalism and democratize provisioning systems within planetary boundaries.
That is why I came up with the idea of writing a book whose core combines class analysis and planetary boundaries, but which is also committed to outlining a cohesive program for change—one that assesses power dynamics and specifies what needs to be done. I want to share the main themes of the book, as well as a simple yet powerful idea: we will thrive if we commit to radical generosity, deprioritizing our careers, comforts, and bubbles in favor of greater goods and supporting people and ecosystems we cannot see or touch.
The centrality of radical generosity will become clearer as you navigate the three main theses of the book:
(I) To appeal to the working class to dismantle capitalism, we need to explain how it creates artificial scarcity and existential threats for them, and show that collective, convivial solutions are necessary to overcome the identity crisis triggered by urbanization, multiculturality, and rapid social change.
It is not enough to argue that capitalism is unsustainable or unjust; we must draw a clear antagonism against current state and corporate structures by speaking in terms of material realities—food, energy, and health—rather than abstract emission figures. Beyond economism, identity politics matters: we need to revalue the rural so that new and traditional values can coexist, and address the tensions of large demographic shifts with pragmatism and justice. This approach could stem the growth of far-right and anti-migrant rhetoric and redirect energy toward public abundance and more plural integration schemes.
(II) We have to dismantle the hegemony of capitalism by normalizing ecosocialism, highlighting the successes of public services, community principles, and cooperatives—showing that ecosocialism is a nowtopia capable of overcoming artificial scarcity, neocolonial and patriarchal structures, and offering a universal program for emancipation within planetary boundaries.
We need to reclaim utopia as something possible—pragmatic yet radical. Let us restore faith in the collective against the survival-of-the-fittest narrative in a world full of bullies, offering material security for all, socially and environmentally meaningful work, justice, and more democratic institutions and workplaces—all while securing the conditions of life on this planet.
(III) We need concrete plans and dissemination strategies, recognizing that we cannot change everything at once. Our priority should be to end artificial scarcity for all while bringing our economic systems within a safe operating space. This can succeed with a clear understanding of the roles that parties, media, unions, and civil-society organizations play in seizing power and enforcing such transformations.
I suggest focusing on ending artificial scarcity by implementing a universal basic income to guarantee access to basic services, while simultaneously building up robust public services through a job guarantee and fair taxation to fund them. This framework will create the space to organize and achieve deeper transformations—to democratize all institutions and ensure resilience against capitalist hostilities.
We also must stop the destruction of life-supporting systems. The main focus here should be a just cap and share of fossil fuels and industrial animal farming—both primary drivers of planetary overshoot—which will dramatically transform land, food, and water availability for the majority.
We will not survive if we fail to bring our life-supporting systems within a safe operating space. We will lack the strength to do so unless the working class sees its material and identity crises addressed now. That will require unprecedented commitment, risk-taking, and strategic action.
This cannot be done on the margins. Many of us will need to quit our jobs, risk our visas, lose friends, and face attacks from the media and far-right extremists. It will mean negotiating with those we disagree with on many fronts, working alongside people who make us uncomfortable, and putting in long hours. It will demand radical generosity—but it will also be the most exciting challenge of our lives.
This is a call to roll up our sleeves: to leave behind comfortable digital activism and go to villages, farms, factories, schools, metro stations, parliaments, media outlets, strikes, direct actions, demonstrations, courts…to shape history. We have no other option. We must either engage in the most radical act of generosity and celebration of life—or we will be the last generation who could save life on this beautiful planet.
I have seen how powerful it can be to act with kindness as a form of radical transformation, to be willing to forgive when there is genuine commitment to change. If we open spaces for dialogue and positive challenge, if we resist every ecocide and genocide as if our lives depend on it, we stand a chance. I cannot imagine anything more precious than shutting down an arms factory complicit in genocide while restoring the souls, soils, rivers, and mountains that capitalism has tried to erase for profit.
Be generous, be kind, and be bold. We’ve got this.
Alan Fortuny Sicart is author of L’escala: Ecosocialism as if our life depends on it
Photo source: ElNacionat.cat
 | A guest post by
|
"It will mean negotiating with those we disagree with on many fronts, working alongside people who make us uncomfortable..."
I've been thinking of this with regard to my city's time bank. Asking about organizational memberships, I was told (in an MMT spirit) that organizations usually run at a negative time balance, and that's okay because it makes sense they'd have more individuals devoting hours to the organization than the organization to other individual bank members.
But this made me think of something a student of mine said about many rural Oregonians, who she lives and works with. She said they are hyper-independent, like if they get badly cut on the job, they'll say, "I don't need to go to the hospital for stitches. I'll just pour some alcohol on it and wrap it up; it will be fine." Perhaps a slight exaggeration, but I thought, "That population would never get on board with the idea that a negative balance is okay." It would violate their culture too deeply.
So for this time bank to get beyond being a hippie pastime, it needs to refigure how it adds up hours to better reflect the contributions to the community that member organizations make. I'm still chewing over how, but I think that move will be essential to bringing more conservative folks in--and we'll need them.
It is extremely disappointing to see the subject of the writing paired with AI generated imagery. The technology goes against the values espoused by the piece. Choosing to use AI slop shows a disrespect for human artistic labor.