Accumulationism: The Self-Consuming System

"Having too many things they spend their hours and money on the couch searching for a soul. A strange species we are. We can stand anything God and nature can throw at us save only plenty. If I wanted to destroy a nation, I would give it too much and would have it on its knees, miserable, greedy, sick."

—John Steinbeck, in a letter to Adlai Stevenson

Much of Steinbeck's writing circles back to greed. Greed destroys Captain Henry Morgan in Cup of Gold; it tears apart the Juárez family in The Pearl. It catalyzes economic collapse in The Grapes of Wrath and quietly corrodes one man's soul in The Winter of Our Discontent. Reading Steinbeck, greed emerges not as a vice, but a pathology—a sickness of mind and spirit that infects, spreads, and ultimately consumes its host.

What’s striking is that Steinbeck, even when chronicling collapse or corruption, rarely blamed individuals. His characters fail, fall, betray themselves—but he nearly always traced their unraveling to deeper currents: economic pressure, cultural mythology, social dislocation. Especially in his later work, greed appears not as personal failing, but as systemic affliction—an epidemic seeded by forces no one person controls. Without the language of systems or complexity, he rendered a systems portrait of greed with remarkable clarity.

What Steinbeck intuited, we can now name. We call it Accumulationism.

What is Accumulationism?

Accumulationism is a global systems dynamic—a structural gravity well that draws societies toward extraction, hoarding, and the consolidation of wealth and power.

Accumulationism is not merely capitalism or consumerism, though it easily wears those masks. Although capitalism accelerates it, Accumulationism predates and extends beyond any single economic system. It is a logic, not a label. It prioritizes exponential growth over vitality, extraction over renewal, metrics over meaning. It operates across economic, political, informational, and ecological domains, reinforcing inequity and suppressing creativity. Its nature is parasitic: it infects ecologies, cultures, and consciousness itself, reprogramming its hosts and eroding the foundations of its own survival.

We live within an Accumulationist paradigm, the pernicious backdrop of daily life. It's hard to see. Instead, we experience its symptoms: endless scrolling on bright screens late at night, with bloodshot eyes and restless fingers; boxes piled in basements and garages, objects we neither need nor want but cannot let go of; the silent dread of unread emails multiplying like weeds in our inboxes. It's the subtle exhaustion of monetizing our hobbies and our friendships, of feeling busy yet empty, caught in cycles of productivity that can't seem to produce satisfaction.

We carry it in our shoulders, feel it in our guts. Driven by invisible urgency, we scramble to get ahead or just keep up, even when we no longer know with what. Our bodies register what our minds can't.

Unable to see the structure, we turn to blame: billionaires, politicians, strangers, ourselves. We grow angry, anxious, isolated. Conspiracies thrive. Nationalism hardens. Blame ricochets. It’s easier to lash out than to face something so vast, abstract, and systemic.

Naming it—Accumulationism—offers clarity. It lets us see our exhaustion, anxiety, and loneliness as more than personal failings. Instead, they are signals from within a structure not designed to sustain human connection or community. We aren't broken, we're trapped.

A very brief history

Accumulationism isn’t new. History shows its footprints clearly. In ancient Mesopotamia, irrigation produced abundance—enough to feed cities, elevate priest-kings, and sustain the first empires. But the irrigation systems that produced surplus also salted the soil, year after year, until the fields withered and turned barren. Civilizations that once flourished along the rivers dwindled, undone by the very mechanisms that made them powerful.

Centuries later, the Roman Empire paved its own road to collapse. Expansion became the engine of its economy, fueled by tribute, plunder, and the steady incorporation of new territories. As long as legions could march, the system sustained itself. But when Rome reached the geographic limits of conquest, the inflow of wealth slowed while the apparatus of empire kept demanding more. Without new inputs, the system fractured. The western empire fell, not beneath a fatal blow, but because the expansion that sustained it ran out of road.

These aren’t isolated incidents; they’re variations on the same tragic arc. Across civilizations, the pattern repeats: surplus creates and consolidates power; power protects and extends surplus. The feedback loop deepens. Accumulation ossifies as a central goal of the system, extracting without renewal until the source of abundance is exhausted. Then comes collapse.

Today, Accumulationism has evolved into subtler, more sophisticated forms. Data extraction. Attention economies. “Likes” harvested for profit. Consumers don’t just buy products—we are the product. Devices that promise ease and leisure pile up in homes and landfills, while we work ourselves to death to pay for them. Climate collapse looms, driven by a system that knows how to extract but not regenerate, how to accelerate but never slow down. These patterns choke our ability to rest, to create, even to notice the world around us. We're left anxious, numb, estranged—and we're convinced it's our fault.

But there’s hope

Recognizing Accumulationism for what it is may not bring relief, but it can offer solace. It reveals our struggles as symptoms of a system that commodifies everything: our time, our attention, our relationships, even our inner lives. It shows that the emptiness we feel isn’t personal, it’s structural. We aren’t weak; we’re exhausted.

To name Accumulationism is more than diagnosis. It’s the first act of recognition. When the familiar ache of never-enough finally has a name, something shifts. Naming the structure lets us question what it tells us is normal and necessary. It gives us language to imagine a different way of being—one grounded in relationship, renewal, and flourishing.

Steinbeck saw it decades ago: give people too much, and watch them sicken. Many of us feel this sickness, quietly suspecting something deeper is at play. Now there's a name for it.

Accumulationism.

It’s not a conspiracy, and it’s not a moral failing. It’s a pattern—a structural logic deeply embedded in our daily lives. Naming it doesn’t solve it. But it changes how we relate to it. It shifts the question from “What’s wrong with me?” to “What kind of world is this—and what might it become?”

Asking these questions won’t fix the problem—at least not directly. But it shifts the power. These questions catalyze agency in a paradigm that suppresses it, moral efficacy in a system designed to absorb and repurpose it.

Asking them is an act of revolution.

---

Where do we go from here?

This essay is the beginning of a larger conversation. In the months ahead, we’ll trace Accumulationism to it's roots—from ancient surplus economies, through industrialization, to modern algorithmic extraction—and use a complexity lens to unpack how it tightened its grip on nearly every domain of life.

We’ll examine what’s truly at stake: moral agency, meaningful community, human creativity, planetary viability—flourishing itself.

We’ll explore collapse not as catastrophe but as consequence, diving deep into how systems unravel and how new ones emerge.

Finally, we’ll ask: What would it mean to reclaim agency in a system that subsumes it? How do we build resilience, restore feedback, and prepare for paradigm shift—not someday, but now?