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.
I’ll preface this by saying I’ve never really engaged much with the concept, because it sounds utopian and idealist to me and my reason is fairly simple:
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
There’s no mechanism or possibility for this under capitalism. Under a socialist mode of production on the other hand, there’s an inherent incentive. But that kinda results from the mode of production itself, so what is the demand for degrowth really? Just a demand for socialism? Then demand socialism, not degrowth. I honestly don’t see the necessity for the concept or for it as a distinct demand, because it isn’t distinct, but intrinsically linked to production itself.
It just seems like a liberal concept that works euphemistically to avoid the question of class and the relations of production. It seems like a “revolutionary demand” without any way to implement it and therefore utopian.
It also sounds distinctly first-world-ly, because the vast majority of the planet isn’t dealing with questions like this, but with the development of their productive forces in the face of Western imperialism. And that is imo a much more important task, much more tangible and even without revolutionary action in the West, by leveling unequal development, should reduce the possibility of unhealthy levels of consumption by itself.
Idk, maybe I’m missing something, but I just don’t see the need for the concept. We should work to destroy class domination of the bourgeoisie and to socialize the distribution of the fruits of labour, to destroy imperialism and to remove the chains binding and exploiting the Global South.
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.
I think it is clear that degrowth can not happen under a capitalist system and when talking about degrowth in it the ideas associated are ofte no more than buzzwords. What exactly does “ethical consumption” mean under capitalism for example.
Also the word degrowth is not proper, a economy can only decrease as long as it can provide necessary goods for citizens, when the popultation grows, the economy has to grow aswell.
I believe, that under communism we won’t define ourselfs by our consumption and thus we can get rid of our artificial desires, that now plague our planet. I therefore think that what you describe as degrowth is not a problem in communism, but rather a consequence of it.
I agree. The goal of capitalistic actors is to increase their capital. It is not important that the people have it better.
I can image little changes in my world that would reduce the economic power, but increase the life of all. But why would this happen under csptalism?
deleted by creator
On the topic of taller cities, I just want to add on that skyscrapers are not necessary for quality, dense cities. Parts of Paris are denser than New York City despite the latter being full of skyscrapers. Eixample in Barcelona is denser than Manhattan in NYC as well. These are still tall buildings mind you, but not skyscrapers.
deleted by creator
I know you didn’t speak of them. I just wanted to add something to the conversation lol.
deleted by creator
I really wish there were more discussion of the topic. I think too often communist spaces can be so focused on geopolitical strife or following a specific historic line that analysis of these modern and extremely pressing issues just isn’t available.
I’m interested in why you say there aren’t any resource issues. For example, if every person on earth were to live like an average American we would need something like 5 earths for all of the resource inputs and land usage. I see many, from socdems to purported marxist-leninists (really patsocs) saying that we must spread American living across the world, and it’s simply not feasible.
Absolutely agree that borders being abolished is a bare minimum to help with these issues.
Personally I don’t have an opinion on degrowth per se for two reasons: first, I haven’t done sufficient research; second, it seems like a lot of degrowthers have different ideas about what it means. I will say that at this point, we’ll probably have to do with less for several decades until we can sufficiently replace all ways of modern life with green alternatives. For example, green airplanes are decades off from being equivalent in price to carbon-emitting planes, so in the medium-term, prices will have to increase and flights will become less frequent. Is that degrowth?
Personally I find the idea of degrowth a bit counterproductive. We should celebrate human achievements, and push production and technology as far as possible. Full communism is only possible in a post-scarcity society.
It goes without saying that none of this is possible under a capitalist system. Instead of growth for the sake of comfort and achievement, growth is solely focused on short-term profits, and blows up every 8 to 12 years (not to mention destroying the environment). Degrowth is also impossible under capitalism, as other people have pointed out.
As you rightfully pointed out, capitalist world does create overconsumption through planned obsolescence and other means.
Should we not have to inflate our GDP by any means (as in a “single-country communism” scenario), we can safely reduce production and get way eco-friendlier by producing reliable goods and employing good practices for the production of food and other mass-consumed goods.
