Source for thinking the degrowth crowd thinks this: Introduction to “The Future is Degrowth”. Does the degrowth crowd really think they can get rid of capitalism without any violence? This seems to have the opposite of a historical precedent, and is a deviation in Marxism, which they seem to heavily draw from. Anytime revolutionaries took the peaceful road they got outcompeted at best and massacred at worst.

  • cayde6ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t think degrowth is the answer, but it depends on your definition of degrowth. Growth using green technology and renewable energy backed by socialist economic planning should be the solution.

    • QueerCommie
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      My degrowth position is basically: you can’t have infinite growth on a finite planet. We use way more resources than we actually have. Under socialism we can make far fewer products, but make them higher quality, so fewer resources are wasted. We also need a circular and library economy where things are used as much and by as many people as possible within a closed system rather than producing things for profit.

      • rufuyunOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Really I can’t wait to see what a modern, technologically advanced socialist economy comes up with in the field of technology. Just hope we live to see it

      • commiespammer
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        But wouldn’t we be able to grow into space? Asteroid mining especially seems very promising, and we’re pretty much capable of it.

        • QueerCommie
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          Degrowth is not “we can’t do anything new or better” it is: “the goal of an economy should be meeting people’s needs, not increasing GDP.” In addition: “there is too much production and exploitation of the earth. Capitalism and market ineficientes produce far more than we need, and distribute it terribly. If we are going to live in harmony with nature we will need to foster “quality over quantity” in terms of production.” No one said we can’t astroid mine or make green energy.

    • relay
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      There will be growth temporarily as we transition our farms to more sustainable methods of agriculture, lots of work is to be done. There will be growth in chaning our energy infrastructure, for lots of work is to be done there. There will be growth in building durable electronics and infrastructure for us to depend on built with free and open source software managed by communities. We’ll also need to build recycling facilities to recycle all non organic matter to build replacement parts to maintain our infrastructure. Things like that.

      However after that, we won’t be buying new things so frequently. We’ll consume less, but enjoy more.

    • rufuyunOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yes, growth in some positive sectors, but if you would agree that advertising, fossil fuels, fast fashion, car dependence, planned obsolescence, etc. all need to be severely downsized or gotten rid of, it seems like you’d agree more than disagree with the changes degrowthers want to make; that is to say nothing of their ideas of transition, which may very well be utopian. I have yet to get to that chapter in my book to make a proper investigation.