this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2024
27 points (100.0% liked)

Solarpunk

224 readers
1 users here now

The space to discuss Solarpunk itself and Solarpunk related stuff that doesn't fit elsewhere.

What is Solarpunk?

Join our chat: Movim or XMPP client.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Not_mikey@slrpnk.net 16 points 8 months ago (3 children)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] xylem 8 points 8 months ago

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.
[–] rimu@piefed.social 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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).

[–] zerakith@lemmy.ml 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] ex_06@slrpnk.net 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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 🤷

[–] zerakith@lemmy.ml 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] ex_06@slrpnk.net 3 points 8 months ago

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 🤝

[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

Maybe an unpopular opinion here, but degrowth of any kind will never be marketable or popular with the working class.

[–] HakFoo@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 8 months ago

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!

[–] zerakith@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 months ago

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

[–] hanrahan@slrpnk.net 2 points 8 months ago

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.

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/degrowth-movement-is-politically-impractical-by-alessio-terzi-2024-03