In my view degrowth is required, either we do it on our own or climate change will degrow for us. It’s necessary not only to combat climate change but also ecological destruction. Jason Hickel is maybe the most well-known author on the topic, though it’s a much broader field.
To be clear, degrowth is not a form of primitivism, it’s not genocidal or Malthusian. It’s simply the concept that especially/primarily in the global north/imperial core production and consumption must be curbed, we are simply using more resources than can be supported by the planet. Planned obsolescence and unchecked consumption cannot continue. Those living in areas with sufficient productive ability need to shift production towards things that are necessary to allow those in the global south the ability to achieve standards of living available in the global north.
I know it’s controversial among some communists, so I wanted to see what lemmygrad thinks about the concept.
It’s an important concept primarily because many still hold on to the “automated luxury communism” ideal, saying that the ultimate goal of communism should be essentially the unchecked fulfillment of human desires.
I agree that it is essentially impossible under capitalism, and I agree that it essentially implies communism. However, that’s not the standard view. Ecology and planning production according to planetary boundaries aren’t necessary in communism, but I think they should be.
I don’t see how it is “first-world-y” if it’s pretty explicitly anti-first world. To me it’s a demand that gives primacy to revolutionary movements in the third world.
I also disagree greatly that it is “utopian,” given that it interfaces directly with physical ecological and gelogical processes and calls for planning production according to human needs and actual resource availability. It’s taking climate change, land use, and resource extraction as the starting point of analysis and molding a program to fit within and fight all of these things. Couldn’t be further from utopian.