Degrowth is a popular concept among solarpunks. This Jacobin article discusses some of its flaws from a Marxist standpoint. In particular, Jacobin reminds us an interpretation of Marxism which blames the Western working class for exploiting the Global South, and lectures the ever-more-exploited Western worker on the need to consume less, divides international labor against itself and sabotages its own best hope of success.
The author seems to focus a lot on the idea Marx was a degrowther, which yeah probably isn’t true but just starts to sound more like ecclesiastical arguments on what Jesus really meant as opposed to talking about the actual issue at hand.
There rebuttal mostly seems to be a techno-optimist view that a lot of pro-growth Marxists have but doesn’t address the consumerist lifestyle of people in the west. The current growth of the economy powered by western consumers driving their cars to Walmart to buy cheap plastic stuff made by exploited workers from the global south that will end up in a landfill in a year probably shouldn’t be a thing both ecologically and socially.
The truth is if there was true global socialism a lot of the consumerist western lifestyle will probably go away as workers from the global south will refuse to produce that stuff or produce it at such a cost to westerners that they won’t want it. Denying this will only lead to tension post revolution.
We should instead focus on the positives of de-growth, that is less work. Yeah, you may not be able to buy that new pair of shoes every other month, but you’ll only work 10 hours a week.
The author seems to focus a lot on the idea Marx was a degrowther, which yeah probably isn’t true but just starts to sound more like ecclesiastical arguments on what Jesus really meant as opposed to talking about the actual issue at hand.
I’ve read Marx and various commentary on his ideas. My conclusion is that he had some interesting things to say, maybe even the seeds of a better future, but we’ve learned a hell of a lot since then. It’s past time to leave the study of Marx to historical context, not advice for today.
We should instead focus on the positives of de-growth, that is less work. Yeah, you may not be able to buy that new pair of shoes every other month, but you’ll only work 10 hours a week.
This is the big one. Unless there is some kind of trigger to force a revolutionary change against our will, we are still at least a few generations away from leaving behind the moral imperative to devote our lives to labour.
I mean, it’s not my morality and never has been, but I know very few people of any age who don’t view work as necessary to fulfillment, even shitty work. In fact, I would argue that the preponderance of work being shitty is why work has become a moral imperative. “Growth through suffering” and similar nonsense.
Until that changes, degrowth will be either impossible or disastrous, because the systems and the very manners of thinking we need in a steady-state (or shrinking) economy are so radically different from those needed by a growth economy.
One potential path is to redefine what we think of as ‘work’. That word is almost always used to refer to the types of things you can attach a monetary value to. Truth is, though, there’s an awful lot of work that gets left out of the definition. Raising kids is work - hell, being pregnant is work. Caring for relatives is work. Growing stuff in your garden is work. Learning new skills is work. Caring for the environment - everything from land management to rewilding to picking up litter - is work. Running social clubs, talking to your neighbors, and generally participating in society is work, particularly when it’s so easy to just look at a screen.
Obviously, saying that we simply need to change the way everything thinks is a bit pie in the sky. But I think it’s a serious tactic to try to employ. We’re letting the capitalists define what ‘useful work’ is, and we’re hurting for it.
People have been trying for several decades to get unpaid but necessary labour classified as work. Largely unsuccessfully, because that brings in a lot of other things like how to calculate pensions. (In Canada, we have a government run pension plan that pays out based on contributions. Homemakers can’t contribute, because they’re not earning any money.)
Then you have workplace injury compensation, access to supplementary health insurance, and a myriad of other things.
Here’s a critique of another anti-degrowth Jacobin article, and the stance Jacobin seems to take on degrowth in general - https://www.resilience.org/stories/2024-03-04/a-response-to-daniel-driscoll-another-slice-of-degrowth-bashing/
The crux of the argument is
- Planetary boundaries are hard boundaries, so the economy can’t go on growing no matter what. We can either plan this ourselves or be faced with climate disasters planning it for us.
- Degrowth is not “everyone gets less” - no one will disagree with the goal of lifting the global south out of poverty. It means diverting the unnecessary consumption (and carbon budget) of the most wealthy people in the global north to help those who actually need the economic growth.
Good article, although long. The main part is towards the end so I recommend skipping to this bit:
Degrowthers consistently misdiagnose the core problem of capitalism as “growth” when in fact it is the lack of social control over production and investment decisions. When we attain such control, we may indeed choose to grow many socially useful forms of production (and degrow others).
This is frustrating because its a strawman. A degrowth scenario could still have growth in some areas (and I would expect it to if it was part of a realignment on more equitable and sustainable principles) and the whole global experience degrowth.
At the core of this is the physical limits of energy sources (and therefore economic activity which is highly coupled and is likely to remain so). There is room for disagreement here but its down to whether or not one believes that tech will save us by providing a different high energy source in time (or a sufficient combination of energy sources and efficiency and decoupling options). On the timescales of Climate Change I’d say that’s highly unlikely and a period of degrowth will be necessary and the precautionary principle suggest we should work to this in case the tech options don’t work.
Idk to me every time a Marxist talks I feel like he is more focusing on defending Marxism and trying to say “Marx already said it he said everything so read Marx and be Marxist” rather than anything useful else lol
I’m not gonna read Marx because people who read it are insufferable and we can explain a better world in much easier words thanks to sociology and psychology anyway 🤷
I do understand the sentiment but I would urge that we need all the voices of discontent towards the current system to be united if we even stand a chance at the change we need on the timelines necessary.
I agree that solidarity and good faith dialogue needs to be two way and it can be difficult at times but we must keep striving to find a way of working with those voices.
Also, should go without saying but you shouldn’t judge a person by their fans (or really a subset of them). Lots in Marx has relevance and resonance to the problems we face. Solarpunk without class analysis will be subverted into techno-captialists vision for the future.
I don’t need Marx for class analysis and I agree on being united. What I do not like is puttingn theory in front of praxis. I won’t ever say “I won’t unionize with this Marxist”, I just won’t play their theory game on their field 😎
As I said, don’t need Marx to still get to the same direction of unions, associations, cooperatives, NGOs, mutual aid, sabotage, anticonsumerism and so on 🤝
Maybe an unpopular opinion here, but degrowth of any kind will never be marketable or popular with the working class.
It needs to avoid being couched as “you’ll have to make do with less.”
I wonder how much degrowth can be achieved by hollowing out production without broad utility (yachts, expensive military toys) while still promising the masses the basics.
On the other hand, we’re seeing the status quo pushing the same stories-- the whole “scrimp and cut out anything beyond bare survival and maybe you’ll qualify for a mortgage by 60.” We don’t need degrowth to get quality of life degradation!
Worth mentioning that we need to be aware the degrowth in a degrowth scenario is a global average. Working classes could see growth (in living standards) whilst the whole economy shrunk.
On a lot issues people consistently say the they want the sort of changes (energy) degrowth would provide. We shouldn’t get lost in the current systems deliberate blurring of economic value and living standards.
See for example this work here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-018-0021-4
Duh?
It sure wouldn’t be, if the owner class wasn’t put up to it.
Read this on Degrowth yesterday and have to agree… Get to his “workable solution” and it’s “thoughts and prayers” :) Just further confirmation that collapse is inevitable.
