At the time of publication of this article, there is as yet no English version of the book in question. The quotations from Saito are translations from the German edition. Also the quotiations of Wallimann et al. are translated from the German edition.
For years, people in wealthy countries have faced a choice: either to consciously scale back growth, energy consumption and material use to a level that is not wasteful, or to let a climate gone mad do so in an uncontrollable and catastrophic manner. According to Kohei Saito, we have chosen the second option: ‘I’ll put it quite bluntly: we are literally standing on the brink of the abyss that will lead to our extinction,’ writes the Japanese philosopher in the chapter ‘The Era of Climate Collapse and the Permanent Economy of Scarcity’. The ‘premises of modern society – such as prosperity, growth and progress’ have been ‘severely shaken. (...) In place of such fundamental modern values, the ideology of the ‘chosen elite’ is gaining ground.’ In the face of natural disasters and famines – droughts, floods, crop failures – stagnation, scarcity and the struggle for scarce resources would become the norm. He titles the foreword ‘The Future is Fascism!’
The threat of fascism arising from the struggle for scarce resources
‘Oh well,’ many might think. ‘Doomsday panic and the verbal big stick of the fascism accusation…’ Yet Kaito’s analysis cannot be so easily dismissed. More than 20 years ago, the American historian Chris H. Lewis wrote: ‘The most striking of these structural contradictions tearing global industrial society apart are the increasing destruction of the environment, the growing poverty and inequality between the countries of the First and Third Worlds, and the mounting threat to (...) democratic forms of government.’ (Wallimann et al., 2003, p. 60). ‘It is tragic that the industrial world’s relentless struggle to conquer and subjugate the Earth in the name of progress will bring about the planet’s collapse and ruin.’ (Wallimann et al., p. 64) In the same anthology, the religious studies scholar Dobkowski and the sociologist Wallimann asked: ‘How likely is it that fascist and other authoritarian political systems will come to power in order to cope with scarcity whilst at the same time preserving class relations? How many human lives might it cost if the distribution of scarce resources were left to the market or to authoritarian and fascist policies?’
Last but not least, mention should be made of the essay by Naomi Klein and Astra Taylor on the rise of end-times fascism: this is not about a golden future for a purported master race. Rather, it is about the selfishness of a self-appointed elite, for example from the circle of libertarian tech billionaires associated with the current US government. A class of the ultra-rich, driven by their greed, is pushing the planet’s life-support systems to the brink of collapse whilst first building their own isolated survival sanctuaries. They could not care less what happens to the majority of humanity in the process. (Klein et al., 2025) Democracy is merely a obstacle to this.
With regard to collapse, the economic consultancy Oxford Economics analyses that, with global warming of 2.2 degrees by 2050, global economic output would plummet by 10 to 20 per cent. ‘Warming of up to 5°C by 2100 would lead to economic annihilation, consistent with scientific research on mass extinction thresholds." (Winter et al; 2022)
‘Dark Socialism’ as a form of scarcity management
These examples show that Saito’s harsh assessment of the situation is not plucked out of thin air. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres sums it up: ‘Humanity has opened the gates of hell.’ In view of the failure of the Paris Climate Agreement – the climate catastrophe has gathered pace – Saito proposes ‘Dark Socialism’ as a solution: it is no longer about the promise of a better future, nor about a left-wing utopia, but about survival, about the social management of scarcity in the face of the destroyed balance of the planet’s life-support systems.
Saito clearly distances himself from the dysfunctional, bureaucratic socialism of the Soviet mould. He deals extensively with Friedrich August von Hayek. The Nobel laureate in Economics had written that a planned economy leads to despotism. The ‘implicit knowledge’ in society is too complex for a central planning authority to have access to all this information. Consequently, it fails to plan in line with real needs. Hayek held the view that the free market provides a better reflection of conditions and is therefore superior to a planned economy.
The market functions through the mechanism of prices. Saito criticises this as being a far too simplistic information system. Indeed, vital needs – such as the human right to a future in a healthy environment – are not reflected in prices. Saito does agree with Hayek regarding the dysfunctionality of a centralised planning bureaucracy. However, in view of the ecological catastrophe into which our faith in the capitalist market is plunging us, he proposes a democratic planned economy. In other words, not an authoritarian system, but a radical extension of democracy to the economy.
The path to this, he argues, lies through a ‘dictatorship of ecology’. From dictatorship to democracy? Saito explains that this does not refer to a dictator who violently clings to power through repression. Rather, in ancient Rome, a dictator was elected to lead the people through a war or a crisis. Once this had been overcome, he was removed from office. In other words, a role similar to that of the captain of a ship. If a storm arises, one cannot convene a general assembly of the crew to decide which sails to lower or how to adjust the course. Instead, the captain makes the decision.
Marx, too, viewed the dictatorship of the proletariat merely as a transitional phase. According to Saito, however, today’s reality demands significant theoretical changes: ‘Marx’s vision of a conflict-free society awaiting us after the dictatorship of the proletariat must be abandoned, as we are already stuck in the midst of a permanent crisis. The dream of a future utopia has been shattered; as a result, social conflicts have become semi-permanent.’ (Saito 2026, p. 237) Saito sees the ‘victims of the environmental crisis’—rather than the working class—as the bearers of the dictatorship of ecology.
Relevant international law already exists
What Saito does not mention is that the dictatorship of ecology would have to enforce existing law. For instance, a unanimously adopted advisory opinion of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea states that the emission of greenhouse gases constitutes marine pollution. And this is prohibited under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Consequently, this means: Every litre of fossil fuel burnt not only renders 30 cubic metres of water uninhabitable for fish (personal communication from Prof. Andreas Oschlies, GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research, Kiel), but also constitutes a violation of international law.
The legal opinion of the International Court of Justice in The Hague, which was also adopted unanimously, goes even further: An intact environment is a human right, as it is a prerequisite for the realisation of other human rights. Measures to combat climate change are not a voluntary political decision, but an obligation under international law that is enforceable in court.
Last but not least, ecology is, by its very nature, undemocratic: the complex interplay of biological, chemical and physical processes is a fixed given. Humans cannot decide what the laws of nature should be. They can only decide how they wish to relate to the laws of nature. For example, whether they burn fossil fuels for the sake of profit and convenience, thereby seemingly dominating nature. The dictatorship of ecology must therefore help pave the way for an approach to these ‘dictatorial’ laws of nature that is consistent with human rights.
The two advisory opinions issued by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the UN’s highest court were brought about on the initiative of Vanuatu and other island states that are acutely threatened by rising sea levels and storms resulting from climate change – in other words, as Saito puts it, the ‘victims of the environmental crisis’. Vanuatu’s proposal for a UN General Assembly resolution expressly welcoming the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion received the approval of 134 states in the UN General Assembly, despite a fierce reaction from the US. Eight states voted against it: the US, Iran and Israel, Liberia, Russia and Belarus, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. In other words, fossil-fuel-profiting states and their allies, in which either dictatorships are in power or the current government exhibits authoritarian traits.
The goal is clear, but where is the path?
So we have international law and a UN resolution against the climate catastrophe. But what can be done to ensure this does not remain a dead letter? At the level of international law, the goal has been established, but the path to it is lacking. Saito therefore proposes the ‘dictatorship of ecology’. However, this has never existed before. He therefore draws – as is to be expected from a Marxist scholar – on, amongst other things, experiences with the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is expressly not in the real-bureaucratic sense of the defunct Soviet Union. Not nationalisation, but the socialisation of the economy: reclaiming the commons privatised under capitalism, as was the case, for example, in ‘Red Vienna’ (1918–1934).
Among other things, he cites the social-revolutionary measures of the Paris Commune (1871) as food for thought. He goes on to discuss the ban on new gas and oil extraction facilities imposed by Gustavo Petro’s Colombian government, and the participatory development planning in Ecuador under Rafael Correa’s government, which included ‘not only bottom-up processes but also state-led top-down measures’ (Saito 2026, p. 275). These were, however, subsequently abolished by successive governments.
He counters Hayek’s criticism that societal needs are too complex for state planning to address them, stating: ‘In view of the ongoing development of digital technologies, the possibilities for planning based on real-time data collection, feedback mechanisms and matching are expanding into ever more areas’ (Saito 2026, p. 299). ‘Coping with the collapse of nature and society’ is therefore to take the form of ‘market socialism’. This means ‘setting industrial transformation in motion through research and development, promoting key industries and expanding social infrastructure. Only through such interventions can the worsening of scarcity be effectively countered.’ (Saito 2026, p. 301) As a current example, he cites ‘Red New York’, as envisaged by the democratic-socialist mayor Zohran Mamdani.
Another example of an economy managed to address scarcity is the British war economy. The state planned and dictated to companies what they were to produce. However, these companies remained in private hands. Strict rationing ensured that everyone had an equal amount of food, which actually improved the diet of the working class. (cf. Herrmann 2023). Saito refers to this as a ‘socialist version of the green war economy’.
The central role of pressure from below
Mamdani came to office in New York because he was backed by a broad grassroots movement which, amongst other things, succeeded in overcoming the financially powerful establishment of the Democratic Party. This highlights the central role of civil society. However, whilst Saito cites the remunicipalisation of Paris’s water supply as a positive example, it must be noted that in Switzerland, water and electricity supply are generally in the hands of municipalities or cantons. As a journalist, I have attended numerous delegates’ meetings of electricity supplier cooperatives without sensing even a hint of any kind of ecological socialism.
On the contrary: through the shipping industry, bank lending and the trade in raw materials, amongst other things, Switzerland’s capitalist economy is heavily implicated in the climate crisis. A study by McKinsey concludes: ‘We estimate that, through international companies based here, Switzerland has an impact on emissions – both directly controlled and import-related – that is 7 to 10 times greater than its domestic emissions, or significantly more if one takes into account the entire sphere of influence, including value chains. Emissions linked to financial flows from Switzerland add a further 14 to 18 times that figure, or even more if other activities, such as investments in government bonds, are taken into account.” The authors conclude: ‘Switzerland has at least an indirect influence on an estimated 2 to 3 per cent of global emissions, which places its sphere of influence on a par with the domestic emissions of Indonesia, Japan and Brazil.’ In a footnote, they comment: ‘Based on total greenhouse gas emissions, only four countries (China, the USA, India and Russia) have higher emissions.’ (Wenger et al., 2022)
In other words: a few key publicly owned commons alone do not guarantee a shift towards a socially and climatically sustainable economy that respects planetary boundaries. Rather, this requires pressure from below: ‘To achieve this, the forces of resistance – that is, social and environmental movements – must mobilise significantly more people and gain strength,’ concludes Saito.
Pressure from below must come from those ‘bearing the brunt of the environmental crisis’. What currently stands in the way of this is that the burden of suffering in the rich countries of the Global North is cushioned by the ‘imperial way of life’ at the expense of the poor in the Global South and indigenous peoples. The latter would have much to contribute towards shaping an economy adapted to the climate crisis: Wallimann and Dobkowski note that ‘people who are forced to live on the brink of the subsistence level’ tend ‘to minimise all risks, rather than to maximise profits and accumulation.’ (Wallimann et al., 2003, p. 28, emphasis in the original). The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) also points in this direction. Thus, ‘the cultural values and beliefs of indigenous peoples and local communities could be harnessed to shape behaviours, foster identity and cooperation, and create a moral compass’ (UNEP 2025).
Hard-to-break structures, ingrained habits
According to Saito, therefore, the ‘victims of the environmental crisis’ are the driving force behind change. But who exactly are they? For example, the excess mortality rate among the elderly during heatwaves is high. In Switzerland, a group of elderly women concerned about climate change successfully secured a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that they were particularly affected by the dangers of climate change. Yet the Swiss political majority decided to ignore the ruling that more must be done. The example of the Pacific islands and the Vanuatu resolution in the UN General Assembly also illustrates the struggle of those bearing the brunt of the environmental crisis. This includes those who lose their homes in bushfires or floods. Farmers are affected when their cows can no longer find water or feed on the alpine pastures during a drought, or when their crops wither in the fields. Or people who are sweltering in overheated offices or hospitals. Yet the demands tend to focus on technical solutions (air conditioning, water retention basins, etc.) rather than addressing a shift away from capitalism’s compulsion for growth. And those worst affected in the Global South – who, moreover, have contributed practically nothing to global warming – are so preoccupied with their intensified struggle for survival that systemic change is hardly a priority in their daily lives. Furthermore, many jobs in the Global South depend on the wasteful economy – such as fast fashion – in the Global North. And for many, their air-conditioned car is a compelling reason to continue commuting to work by car rather than subjecting themselves to the rigours of public transport, which is often not air-conditioned…
The structures and habits created by fossil-fuel capitalism therefore make it difficult for those bearing the brunt of the environmental crisis to collectively challenge capitalism. This makes an active civil society minority all the more important. But is 3.5 per cent of the population – as Saito writes in his book *Systemsturz* – enough? Let’s hope so!
Nevertheless, his reflections on the necessary economic, political, social and everyday cultural change are well worth reading and discussing. For the planet-wide environmental crisis forces us to address the question of how to achieve a reduction in the consumption of natural resources and ensure it is distributed fairly.
And above all, Saito’s goal of a fully-fledged democracy is particularly appealing. Whether the term ‘Dark Socialism’, however, is suitable as a concept capable of mobilising support in political debate is open to doubt.
References
Jens Beckert (2024): Verkaufte Zukunft. Warum der Kampf gegen den Klimawandel zu scheitern droht. Bonn, Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung
Ulrike Herrmann (2023): Das Ende des Kapitalismus. Warum Wachstum und Klimaschutz nicht vereinbar sind – und wie wir in Zukunft leben werden. Köln, Kiepenheuer und Witsch
Naomi Klein, Astra Taylor (2025): The rise of end times fascism, in The Gaurdian, 13. Apr. 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2025/apr/13/end-times-fascism-far-right-trump-musk
Kohei Saito (2024): Systemsturz. Der Sieg der Natur über den Kapitalismus. München, dtv Verlagsgesellschaft
Kohei Saito (2026): Am Ende des Fortschritts. Überleben in den Ruinen des Kapitalismus. München, dtv Verlagsgesellschaft
Chris H. Lewis (2003): Die globale Industriegesellschaft: Der unausweichliche Zusammenbruch. in Wallimann et al. 2003
United Nations Environment Programme UNEP (2025): Global Environment Outlook 7: A future we choose – Why investing in Earth now can lead to a trillion-dollar benefit for all. Nairobi. https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/49014
Isidor Wallimann, Michael N. Dobkowski (2003): Das Zeitalter der Knappheit. Ressourcen, Konflikte, Lebenschancen. Bern, Paul Haupt
Isidor Wallimann, Michael N. Dokowski (2003): Einleitung: Das Zeitalter der Knappheit, in Wallimann et al. 2003
Felix Wenger, Marco Ziegler, Annika Wulkop, Alexander Keberle (2022): Klimastandort Schweiz, Schweizer Unternehmen als globale Treiber für Netto-Null, McKinsey & Company
David Winter, Manuela Kiehl (2022): Temperature volatility comes at a price to worldwide growth, Oxford Economics, https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/resource/temperature-volatility-comes-at-a-price-to-worldwide-growth/