SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Can capitalism survive the climate crisis it helped create? Or must we finally admit that it’s the system itself that’s killing us?
The world is burning, both literally and figuratively. Temperatures are shattering records. Wildfires sweep across continents. Glaciers melt while droughts deepen. Inequality balloons. Billions go hungry while billionaires build bunkers. And through it all, one system marches forward, extracting, exploiting, expanding.
Its name is capitalism.
And the question we must now face, urgently, collectively, without illusion, is this: Can capitalism survive the climate crisis it helped create? Or must we finally admit that it’s the system itself that’s killing us?
This isn’t just a theoretical question. It’s a matter of survival.
Contrary to what some economists would have us believe, capitalism didn’t arise through peaceful trade or natural evolution. It was forged in conquest, enclosure, slavery, and plunder.
Capitalism is not broken because it has failed to innovate. It’s broken because it has succeeded, at concentrating wealth, externalizing costs, and turning the Earth into a profit machine.
In early modern Europe, peasants were forced off common lands so the wealthy could raise sheep for profit. The so-called “Enclosure Movement” turned shared resources into private property, creating the first landless laborers, people with no choice but to sell their labor to survive.
From there, capitalism scaled outward. Empires expanded, fueled by the theft of land, labor, and life. The Atlantic slave trade, the colonization of the Americas, and the pillaging of India and Africa were not side effects, they were the fuel that powered capitalist growth.
Later came the Industrial Revolution, mechanizing exploitation, churning out commodities, and giving birth to the cult of “growth.” What had once been measured in survival and sustenance was now measured in productivity, output, and profit.
By the 20th century, capitalism had globalized. And by the 21st, it had digitized, financialized, and fully detached from the ecological limits of the planet.
Today, we’re told that capitalism can fix the very crises it’s caused. Silicon Valley technologists, global financiers, and political centrists speak of green growth, decoupling, and innovation. Solar panels, electric vehicles, carbon markets, environmental and social governance portfolios, these are the new gospel.
But while emissions rise, forests fall, and temperatures climb, the promises feel increasingly hollow.
Capitalism is not broken because it has failed to innovate. It’s broken because it has succeeded, at concentrating wealth, externalizing costs, and turning the Earth into a profit machine.
The logic of endless growth is fundamentally at odds with a planet that cannot grow. And no amount of green branding can change that.
In places like Rochester, New York we see both the consequences of capitalism and the seeds of resistance.
The private utility company, Rochester Gas and Electric, is facing a people-powered campaign for public takeover after years of rate hikes and service failures. Community land trusts are reclaiming housing from speculative markets. Regenerative farms are feeding neighbors instead of shareholders. These are not utopias, they’re struggles. But they are real, local, and rooted in solidarity.
They remind us that the fight for climate justice is also a fight for energy democracy, housing justice, and food sovereignty. It’s not about tweaking the system. It’s about transforming it.
Over a century ago, Mohandas Gandhi warned of where industrial capitalism would lead. In Hind Swaraj, he rejected not only colonial rule, but the Western model of “progress” itself. He saw clearly that a civilization based on speed, greed, and machinery would eventually consume itself.
“Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s needs,” he wrote, “but not every man’s greed.”
Gandhi’s vision wasn’t a return to the past, it was a radical call for restraint, community, and moral clarity. He called for economies rooted in place, not profit. He believed wealth should be held in trusteeship, not hoarded for personal gain. And he insisted that any real revolution must begin within the soul.
Capitalism is not compatible with climate justice. It never was.
To many, this sounded naïve. Today, it sounds prophetic.
The reckoning is now. A dead planet can not turn a profit. Capitalism gave us vaccines, satellites, supercomputers. But it also gave us rising seas, poisoned air, and mass extinction. We cannot separate the gifts from the costs. And we can no longer pretend that reform is enough.
Yes, we need innovation. Yes, we need policy. But we also need imagination. We need the courage to envision systems not based on extraction, but on care. Not on growth, but on balance. Not on domination, but on solidarity.
We need, as the late David Graeber wrote, a world where we treat each other as if we actually matter.
The road ahead will not be easy. It will be full of contradictions, compromises, and uncertainty. But we must begin with honesty: Capitalism is not compatible with climate justice. It never was.
And we cannot build a livable future with the same tools that built the crisis.
It’s time to stop asking whether capitalism can be fixed, and start building the alternatives that already exist in our communities, our movements, and our collective memory.
There may still be time.
But not much.
And history, like the atmosphere, is watching.
"In a time of record-breaking income inequality and rampant corporate greed," said one lawmaker, "it is more important than ever that we as Democrats reassert and reinforce our commitment to working people."
Four task forces announced on Wednesday by the Congressional Progressive Caucus will focus efforts on winning Democratic seats in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2026, with members rallying around one key idea that the party has been criticized for sidelining: "Americans are fed up with an economy and a government that are rigged in favor of the powerful and well-connected while failing to serve working people."
That was what U.S. Rep. Dave Min (D-Calif.) had to say, in part, as he was named the chair of a new task force on fighting corruption, with Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) serving as vice chair.
After prosecuting fraud at the Securities and Exchange Commission and teaching law students at the University of California, Irvine, Min said he was "proud to continue the anti-corruption fight in Congress"—a fight that the CPC said is essential to winning the trust and votes of Americans as they decide whether Democrats or Republicans will control Congress after next year's midterm elections.
The policy proposals that the four new task forces will advance "enjoy support from voters across the ideological and demographic spectrum" and are all focused on making life easier for working-class Americans and shifting political priorities away from serving corporations and the wealthy.
The CPC cited new polling from Data for Progress that showed such policies—like raising the minimum wage and lowering the cost of essentials—"enjoy a supermajority and give a 9-point advantage for Democrats who lead with these themes compared to a generic Democratic message against a Republican opponent."
"Working people in America are getting screwed by corrupt politicians and big corporations that are driving costs up and keeping pay and benefits down."
The other task forces will be focused on lowering costs, with Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.) chairing; ending corporate greed, with Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.) serving as chair; and securing better pay and benefits for U.S. workers, with Rep. Emily Randall (D-Wash.) chairing.
"In my home state of Arizona, families have been crushed by rising costs brought on by [President Donald] Trump and Republicans—whether it's skyrocketing healthcare premiums, unaffordable housing, or the soaring costs of education, childcare, long-term care, and even just commuting to work," said Ansari. "I'm honored to lead the Lowering Costs Task Force as one of the ways we're fighting back to deliver bold policies that will help working families.”
Randall said that in her district in Washington, she has watched as economic security has become less and less accessible for working families in recent decades.
"I've seen my grandparents, my teachers, my neighbors afford homes and vacations and childcare because they had good jobs. But over the years, affording a good life has gotten harder and harder," said Randall. "Our neighbors deserve leaders who put people before profits and stand up for what's right. They deserve leaders who understand that an economy that is centered on working people is a stronger economy for everyone. As chair of the Better Pay and Benefits Task Force, I'm committed to fighting for fairer wages, stronger benefits, safer workplaces, and an economy that puts working people first—right at the center of our policies."
The task forces were announced days after Trump signed his massive domestic policy package, which is opposed by more than 60% of Americans, according to a new poll, and makes the 2017 tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy permanent while cutting food assistance and healthcare spending.
"Working people in America are getting screwed by corrupt politicians and big corporations that are driving costs up and keeping pay and benefits down," said Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), who chairs the CPC. "Our four new task forces go directly at those big problems facing Americans: fighting corruption and corporate greed in order to lower costs and win better pay and benefits."
As the CPC announced the task forces, a coalition of dozens of civil society groups launched a political action committee aimed at centering working-class issues in the 2026 elections and winning back more than 35 House seats for Democrats.
"In a time of record-breaking income inequality and rampant corporate greed," said Rep. Mark DeSaulnier (D-Calif.), vice chair of the Better Pay and Benefits Task Force, "it is more important than ever that we as Democrats reassert and reinforce our commitment to working people."
The class-based inequalities exacerbated by the Trump bill are not new. Rather, they are part of a 50-year trend linked to social cleavages, political corruption, and a declining belief in the common good.
America has never been richer. But the gains are so lopsided that the top 10% controls 69% of all wealth in the country, while the bottom half controls just 3%. Meanwhile, surging corporate profits have mostly benefited investors, not the broader public.
This divide is expected to widen after President Donald Trump’s sweeping new spending bill drastically cuts Medicaid and food aid, programs that stabilize the economy and subsidize low-wage employers.
Moreover, the tax cuts at the heart of the bill will deliver tens of billions of dollars in benefits to the wealthiest households while disproportionately burdening low-income households, according to analyses by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation. By 2033, the bottom 20% will pay more in taxes while the top 0.1% receive $43 billion in cuts.
I am a sociologist who studies economic inequality, and my research demonstrates that the class-based inequalities exacerbated by the Trump bill are not new. Rather, they are part of a 50-year trend linked to social cleavages, political corruption, and a declining belief in the common good.
The decades following World War II were broadly prosperous, but conditions began changing in the 1970s. Class inequality has increased enormously since then, according to government data, while income inequality has risen for five decades at the expense of workers.
Economists usually gauge a country’s economic health by looking at its gross domestic product as measured through total spending on everything from groceries to patents.
But another way to view GDP is by looking at whether the money goes to workers or business owners. This second method—the income approach—offers a clearer picture of who really benefits from economic growth.
The money that goes to labor’s share of GDP, or workers, is represented by employee compensation, including wages, salaries, and benefits. The money left over for businesses after paying for work and materials is called gross operating surplus, or business surplus.
The share of GDP going to workers rose 12% from 1947 to 1970, then fell 14% between 1970 and 2023. The opposite happened with the business surplus, falling 18% in the early postwar decades before jumping 34% from 1970 to today.
Meanwhile, corporate profits have outpaced economic growth by 193% since 1970. Within profits, shareholder dividends as a share of GDP grew 274%.
As of 2023, labor had lost all of the economic gains made since 1947. Had workers kept their 1970 share of GDP, they would have earned $1.7 trillion more in 2023 alone. And no legislation or federal action since 1970 has reversed this half-century trend.
When more of the economy goes to businesses instead of workers, that poses serious social problems. My research focuses on three that threaten democracy.
Not just an issue of income and assets, growing class inequality represents the fraying of American society.
For instance, inequality and the resulting hardship are linked to worse health outcomes. Americans die younger than their peers in other rich countries, and U.S. life expectancy has decreased, especially among the poor.
Moreover, economic struggles contribute to mental health issues, deaths of despair, and profound problems such as addiction, including tobacco, alcohol, and opioid abuse.
Inequality can disrupt families. Kids who experience the stresses of poverty can develop neurological and emotional problems, putting them at risk for drug use as adults. On the other hand, when minimum wages increase and people begin saving wealth, divorce risk falls.
Research shows inequality has many other negative consequences, from reduced social mobility to lower social trust and even higher homicide rates.
Together, these broad social consequences are linked to misery, political discontent, and normlessness.
Inequality is rising in the U.S. largely because business elites are exercising more influence over policy outcomes, research shows. My related work on privatization explains how 50 years of outsourcing public functions—through contracting, disinvestment, and job cuts—threatens democratic accountability.
Research across different countries has repeatedly found that higher income inequality increases political corruption. It does so by undermining trust in government and institutions, and enabling elites to dominate policymaking while weakening public oversight.
Yet democratic decline and inequality are not inevitable.
Since 2010, weakened campaign finance laws driven by monied interests have sharply increased corruption risks. The Supreme Court ruled then in Citizens United to lift campaign finance restrictions, enabling unlimited political spending. It reached an apex in 2024, when Elon Musk spent $200 million to elect Trump before later installing his Starlink equipment onto Federal Aviation Administration systems in a reported takeover of a $2.4 billion contract with Verizon.
Research shows that a large majority of Americans believe that the economy is rigged, suggesting everyday people sense the link between inequality and corruption.
National aspirations have emphasized the common good since America’s founding. The Declaration of Independence lists the king’s first offense as undermining the “public good” by subverting the rule of law. The Constitution’s preamble commits the government to promoting the general welfare and shared well-being.
But higher inequality historically means the common good goes overlooked, according to research. Meanwhile, work has become more precarious, less unionized, more segmented, and less geographically stable. Artificial intelligence may worsen these trends.
This tends to coincide with a drop in voting and other forms of civic engagement.
The government has fewer mechanisms for protecting community when rising inequality is paired with lower taxes for the wealthy and reduced public resources. My research finds that public sector unions especially bolster civic engagement in this environment.
Given increasing workplace and social isolation, America’s loneliness epidemic is unsurprising, especially for low earners.
All of these factors and their contribution to alienation can foster authoritarian beliefs and individualism. When people become cold and distrustful of one another, the notion of the common good collapses.
News coverage of the Trump bill and policy debate have largely centered on immediate gains and losses. But zoomed out, a clearer picture emerges of the long-term dismantling of foundations that once supported broad economic security. That, in turn, has enabled democratic decline.
As labor’s share of the economy declined, so too did the institutional trust and shared social values that underpin democratic life. Among the many consequences are the political discontent and disillusionment shaping our current moment.
Republicans hold both chambers of Congress through 2026, making significant policy changes unlikely in the short term. Democrats opposed the bill but are out of power. And their coalition is divided between a centrist establishment and an insurgent progressive wing with diverging priorities in addressing inequality.
Yet democratic decline and inequality are not inevitable. If restoring broad prosperity and social stability are the goals, they may require revisiting the New Deal-style policies that produced labor’s peak economic share of 59% of GDP in 1970.