Recommendation 1: Ban Capitalist Advertising
Cities should take steps to limit capitalist advertising. While it is not possible for cities to end all advertising (e.g., online or broadcast), there is significant scope to reduce or end outdoor advertising. This will require political courage. It is likely to meet resistance. First, and most obviously, resistance may come from advertising agencies and advertisers for whom this is a threat to their business models. But resistance may also come from within city administration. Adverts contribute substantively to the finances of many cities, both directly and through public–private partnerships to fund infrastructure (
Iveson, 2012). The loss of these funds is likely to be a challenge for many overstretched and underfunded services. There may also be arguments around freedom of expression and choice—though these rely on a restrictive notion of freedom that requires users to have the money to purchase advertising space, effectively meaning that most citizens and organizations are already unable to take part in advertising.
Local policymakers who do have the political courage to make moves banning advertising may take hope from the fact that they would not be the first to do so. Notably, Sao Paulo implemented a ban on billboards in 2007 with the enactment of
Lei Cidade Limpa (
Clean City Law). Although adverts have since begun to re-establish a presence in the city, this initially saw the removal of some 15,000 billboards (
Victor, 2020). Such moves would be a clear way to contribute to national and global struggles against over-production, over-consumption, and climate change (
Kaupa, 2023;
Schmelzer et al., 2022)
Where it is not politically feasible for city leaders to ban capitalist adverts outright or where non-elected city officials do not feel able to propose such a ban, one option is to move in a piecewise manner. Electorates or city leaders may be more amenable to targeted arguments highlighting how specific adverts are harmful to their political interests. The starting point is to make the case for the banning of the most harmful adverts—such as for fossil fuels, SUVs, and tobacco. There is clear evidence that advertising such products promotes their consumption, directly fostering ecological and social crises (
Kasser et al., 2020). Cities around the world are already taking steps in this direction. There is support for this from organizations like Adfree Cities, which set out definitions of and model motions for banning high carbon advertising (
Gillet, 2023).
Recommendation 2: Promote Alternative Economy Advertising
Where there is more political ambition or possibility, a move to ban capitalist advertising could usefully be combined with a positive proposal to reimagine advertising spaces and use them promote to pro-social and pro-ecological ways of living. Reading advertising as a form of art that seeks to communicate values and narratives gives us a way to work with advertising beyond banning it. Most adverts today are used by capitalism to promote mass consumption and support mass production. Art was used by the Soviet Union to promote authoritarian communism. But other groups also use art to promote their practices. Could art and advertising be used to promote alternative, sustainable ways of living? There are examples of this in practice.
Adblock Bristol (
Adfree Cities (n.d.)) supports the Burg Arts project, a community arts billboard that takes a space typically associated with capitalist advertising (the billboard) and instead uses it to host artistic works celebrating the local community (
Figure 2). Likewise, the practice of subvertising uses advertising space to critique capitalist organisations (
Dekeyser, 2021).
Figure 3 shows a billboard from Brighton where a poster has been put up on a billboard with the explicit intention of critiquing a corporate brand and drawing attention to its ecologically destructive practices. Currently these activities are marginal, carried out by grassroots organizations. Cities should act to systematize and promote such creative uses of advertising space. If city advertising space were given over to the promotion of critical thought and non-capitalist activities, this would at least deprive capitalism of a space it uses to recreate its cultural power and could even lay the groundwork for a cultural shift toward civic and ecological activism.
The first step in systematically promoting alternatives to capitalist advertising is to identify the specific alternative social and ecological values that the city wants to promote. This is challenging because it would be open to greenwashing. To be effective at challenging capitalist cultural values advertising space should be used to promote activities that do not require participation in for-profit activity (either through consumption or production).
Table 1 provides a set of exemplar activities and values. Note that green consumption does not feature here; while electric cars, green hydrogen, and vegan meat alternatives (for example) are less environmentally damaging than petrol cars, fossil gas, and red meat consumption, they are still part of the cultural logic of capitalism, and their adverts foster consumption as the means to achieve happiness (
Santa & Drews, 2023).
The suggestions in
Table 1 are not definitive; cities would need to develop their own criteria of what constitutes social and environmental value from their perspective. Value cannot be defined technocratically; value is subjective and should be arrived at democratically. In the simplest case, this may be going through stated goals or priorities of the current administration. A more robust approach may be to conduct citizen assemblies or other participatory exercises to construct understandings of value in a democratic manner. Examples of city-level climate citizen assemblies in the United Kingdom suggest that they can be used to build political mandates for elected representatives (
Wells et al., 2021).
Once a set of values has been developed, a number of options open up. Where there is political will, city leaders could ban all adverts that do not promote the value criteria developed. Where this is not possible, one model to follow is green public procurement (
Aldenius & Khan, 2017;
Liu et al., 2019). When negotiating contracts for companies to manage advertising space, the value criteria could be used to judge adverts in terms of the values they support, and quotas of adverts meeting such criteria could be written into legal agreements with outdoor advertising providers. Such a move could be coupled to commitments to provide free or reduced-cost advertising space to city-based community groups meeting the city definitions of social and ecological value. Such moves would fall short of outright bans of capitalist practice but would constitute positive shifts.
Recommendation 3: Acknowledge and Promote Diverse Economic Systems
One of the central ways that capitalism retains its cultural power is by hiding in plain sight (
Mair, 2022). For many of us, capitalism is the system that dominates our lives. We work in capitalist organizations, live in capitalist countries, and are subject to capitalist propaganda. And yet, we rarely hear about capitalism; instead we hear about the economy or the market. This is challenging and often leaves us feeling incapable of picturing a life outside of capitalism. And yet, everyday we also engage with non-capitalist ways of producing.
Adverts have power because they are a kind of cultural artefact that shapes how people view the world. But adverts are not the only such artefact. Utopian fiction acts as a rare space in which we find alternative visions of the economy (
Mair et al., 2020). Academic papers are another space where we find economic depictions—though by and large these depictions support capitalism rather than challenge it (
Mair, 2022). The documents produced by cities are also cultural artefacts: they contain assumptions and ideas about how the world works and can shape the views of the people that read them.
Cities can challenge the cultural dominance of capitalism by helping their citizens to see capitalism as one possible economic system rather than the only economic system, and by showcasing alternatives. Doing this can start with using language in city documents that identify organizations, processes, or systems as capitalist or non-capitalist. All documents produced by a city administration are cultural artefacts, and many of them have the potential to help people see beyond capitalism. Whether internal or externally facing, documents are engaged with by the public or by staff members, and they will either help people to see and understand the diversities of economic production or implicitly reinforce the idea that capitalism and the economy are synonymous. Indeed, while public facing documents may reach a wider audience, unelected city officials may have more power to (subversively) act by incorporating this language into internal documents.
As city leaders and staff, you will have experience with multiple forms of productive systems. In your cities, you will have organizations that are run in different ways. In many ways, the specific activities underlying the production will look very similar. What distinguishes them is the social context that surrounds them: What kind of value is produced? Who produces the value? Who gets to keep the value (
Gibson-Graham, 2006)? One way to articulate this is through the questions set out in
Table 2.
Table 2 sets out idealized forms of pure capitalist enterprises, hybrid enterprises, and non-capitalist enterprises. Under the heading capitalist we might think of speculative financial firms generating monetary value through speculative activity. A small proportion of this monetary value goes to workers in the form of a wage, while the majority is captured by investors. On the other extreme, we might have pure public organizations run by volunteers and generating a non-monetary value that is freely distributed. Think of youth groups or other community organizations. Such organizations might generate no monetary value at all. In the middle fall
alternative capitalist or hybrid organizations, such as social enterprises, which use monetary value and markets in the pursuit of other value forms. These examples are instructive, but in reality, things are not always so clear.
Many organizations have combinations of capitalist and non-capitalist characteristics. To give you an example from my own life, I work for a UK university. It has a mission to provide the social value of “an education that empowers” (
University of York, 2023). This is the major part of why I want to work in higher education: to empower people to make change. I produce knowledge that critiques capitalism and attempts to support alternatives, and I try to teach in a way that empowers my students. These activities are forms of production that have non-capitalist characteristics. They are not done purely to generate money, and the surpluses they generate are not directly captured by a capitalist class. But, inevitably, these activities are complicated by the capitalist structures they are embedded within. My production is not only valuable for the knowledge it provides but also as a source of income for my employer and as a supporter of the conditions of broader capitalist production. Critique has developed into its own profitable industry (
Bacevic, 2019). My employer hopes that my critiques will eventually be realized as monetary value by attracting students or grant money. Students themselves are sold the promise of a better job at the end of their degree and so come to understand their learning in terms of how they can support capitalist production rather than transform it (
Troiani, 2017). I work for a wage, and my employer seeks to minimize my cost to them. As I write this my union is in an industrial dispute with the employers’ association over workload, pay, and pensions (
UCU, 2023). I (and my union) would argue that this reflects an unequal distribution of surplus generated by the sector. Universities are social organizations, but their social ends are constantly pressured and subverted to the capitalist goals of accumulation by educating a workforce and providing knowledge that can be marketized and sold (
Jessop, 2018;
Troiani, 2017).
Being aware of my position in production systems enables me to reflect on my role and push towards more substantive change. This is what is sometimes called
praxis: action that is informed by reflection (
Freire, 1970). Knowing that I have some freedoms (to critique and to help students engage with potentially transformative ideas) I can take steps to promote those aspects of my work. I can create classroom spaces, learning opportunities, and research that attempt to strengthen this ideal (
Canaan, 2010). At the same time, I acknowledge that this work is compromised and supports capitalist structures, so I can try to challenge and resist the compromises. I do this within my work (discussing these tensions with students and attempting to shape university strategies) and outside it (through my union). I can also acknowledge the limits of my role and take up voluntary activities that support the broader cultural change I think we need (I help run a youth group affiliated with the International Falcon Movement—Socialist Educational International).
By adopting a language and analytical framework that helps people to better understand and reflect on the nature of the economic systems that dominate their lives, cities can take on a proactive and radical educational role. Climate action has to be material—new ideas alone won’t save the planet. But, at the same time, such action must be supported by a cultural shift. Understanding that we engage with both capitalist and non-capitalist dynamics every day can help people to understand and articulate their place in production systems. Praxis tells us that the first step in taking action on a problem is to be aware of it, and taking effective action always requires reflection on the action taken (
Freire, 1970). I have argued that academic writing has the potential to act as cultural artefacts in which readers can find alternative values and ways of living (
Mair, 2022). The documents and other artefacts produced by cities can work in the same way: as educational tools that enable the public to see through the “confusion of … ‘common sense’” (
Canaan, 2005, p. 161) that economic rhetoric attempts to use in discourses of climate delay. By helping their citizens to reflect on their lives and place in capitalist and non-capitalist economic activity, cities can enhance collective capacities to engage in community and political action to promote the material structures that support serious climate action.