The concept of transformation has become a buzzword within the last few years. This has to do, first, with the ever broader recognition of the profound character of the environmental crisis, secondly, with increasingly obvious limits to existing forms of (global) environmental governance, thirdly, with the emergence of other dimensions of the crisis since 2008 and, fourthly, with intensified debates about required profound social change, especially of societal nature relations. However, the term transformation itself is contested. It largely depends on (...) theoretical assumptions as well as the plausibility and applicability of the arguments which are made. In this paper, a historical-materialist approach to social-ecological transformation is outlined by referring to a theoretically sophisticated understanding of ‘subject(s)’ of transformation as well as the ‘object(s)’ of what is to be transformed. Theoretical concepts like the capitalist mode of production, regulation and hegemony, a critical understanding of the state and governance as well as the term societal nature relations are key. Such a perspective contributes to a more sophisticated understanding of the obstacles and requirements of real-world transformation. Finally, the argument has implications for visions and strategies, i.e., an emancipatory and democratic shaping of social relations and societal nature relations. (shrink)

The planetary boundaries concept has profoundly changed the vocabulary and representation of global environmental issues. The article starts by highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of planetary boundaries from a social science perspective. It is argued that the growth imperative of capitalist economies, as well as other particular characteristics detailed below, are the main drivers of the ecological crisis and exacerbated trends already underway. Further, the planetary boundaries framework can support interpretations that do not solely emphasize technocratic operational approaches and costs, (...) but also assume that these alone can be the solution. (shrink)

The notion of societal boundaries aims to enhance the debate on planetary boundaries. The focus is on capitalist societies as a heuristic for discussing the expansionary dynamics, power relations, and lock-ins of modern societies that impel highly unsustainable societal relations with nature. While formulating societal boundaries implies a controversial process – based on normative judgments, ethical concerns, and socio-political struggles – it has the potential to offer guidelines for a just, social-ecological transformation.

Seit Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts hat die historisch-materialistische Gesellschaftstheorie wichtige Beitrage zur Rolle des Staates geleistet. Insbesondere seit den 1970er Jahren fragte eine Stromung, die sich zum "westlichen Marxismus" zahlte: Warum nimmt politische Herrschaft in burgerlich-kapitalistischen Gesellschaften die spezifische Form des Staates an? Wie transformiert sich der Staat historisch in enger Verbindung mit gesellschaftlichen Veranderungen? Joachim Hirsch ist ein herausragender Vertreter dieses theoretischen Ansatzes, der die Frage nach der Staatsform ins Zentrum gestellt hat. Er hat Begriffe wie "Sicherheitsstaat", "nationaler Wettbewerbsstaat" (...) und "Internationalisierung des Staates" gepragt und die materialistische Staatstheorie mit der Hegemonietheorie Antonio Gramscis und der Regulationstheorie produktiv verknupft. Wichtige politische Kritiken und Perspektiven verdichten sich in Hirschs Konzepten wie "radikaler Reformismus" und "soziale Infrastruktur". (shrink)