Degrowth is a noble ideal to strive for, and it would certainly mitigate a lot of our current problems if implemented. However, I fear that it is an ideal that can be adopted by the few but not the many. Growth, progress and personal ambition are inherent human traits - it may not be the case for all people, but it is certainly evident in today’s society and many societies that have come before. In my opinion, we need solutions and frameworks that most (if not all) personalities can exist within. I worry degrowth is wishful thinking, and would love to hear your thoughts.
All of that said - I believe it is a very worthwhile thought exercise and even if all degrowth principles cannot be implemented, some can and that is what matters.
Nobody knows human nature for sure aside from the fact that we’re very social and very adaptive thanks to that. Our species is about 300k years old, it would be silly to take a tiny bit of that, the last 6k or 10k as an adequate sample size.
Degrowth is absolutely not compatible to capitalism because as an economic system it has growth embedded in its model. One of the biggest problems is that this economic system has taken over the decision making processes of human societies all over the globe (ie representative democracy). Like models of the past they portrait themselves as invincible, like kings thought of their situation, slave owners etc. I believe we should first be able to imagine a world without capitalism in order to achieve this goal. Btw I don’t have the answers, we do.
So the way I see things degrowth is fully compatible with humans and human societies (sorry I can’t use the term “human nature” but I suppose that’s another topic), personal growth and societal prosperity because it is anti-capitalistic.
So I also thought of sharing a 15-min video from a few years back:
New Economies: How Degrowth Will Save the World with Jason Hickel
I agree that in the long run degrowth is not compatible with capitalism, at least not capitalism as we know it. Even if markets and private property continued to play some role in the economy. However, I think it’s important to emphasize that we don’t need to first somehow completely rid of capitalism (that would require some higher order magic) and then implement degrowth. There are many reforms that can start building the path of a prosperously degrowing society. A good overlook of degrowth policies can be found in this article. Of course, the need to reduce material flows is absolutely urgent, and I definitely advocate building popular support and implementing degrowth policies asap.
I read the article you linked but I don’t see how it backs your argument that degrowth could be compatible with some form of capitalism (as you mention in your first sentence). It seems to me this article does the opposite.
Personally, I can’t think of any kind of capitalism that is compatible with policies / goals / objectives related to:
Tax justice for social ecological justice
or
Redistribute land, labour, capital and resources within and between countries
or
Direct activism and sabotage For example - anti-capitalism malware program
or
Restrict platform capitalism (e.g. AirBnB); Promote decentralised platform cooperative models
etc
(found in the Appendix A. Thematic synthesis of degrowth policy proposals)
For me degrowth is potentially one way to get rid of capitalism.
I’m not sure whether we have the same idea of what it means for capitalism to be compatible with something. Maybe setting aside direct action for now, major reforms in all of the areas you mentioned could be implemented in a society with a predominantly capitalist mode of production, with enough political power. It would be a move away from capitalism, strengthening socialist and statist modes of production. But it would not mean the end of capitalism as a mode of production. It doesn’t mean those reforms could be implemented only or even preferably by completely terminating capitalism, i.e. private capital and production, at once through total revolution.
There are always multiple modes of production active in a society. For an example case, compare the USA and any nordic country. Both are predominantly capitalist states, but in a nordic country, there is far more production following a socialist and statist mode than in the US. Of course, major transformations are also needed in the nordic countries to get on the path of degrowth, that’s for sure.
For reference, André Gorz, who is one of the most influential degrowth scholars, developed the concept of “non-reformist reforms” which are anti-capitalist reforms in a capitalist system. Another good read is this piece, “How to think about (and win) socialism”. Erik Olin Wright writes about the complexities of production relations and strategic logics of transformation.
I did take a quick look at your links and I think I understand a bit better your approach now. I’ll take a closer look at them, as soon as I I find the time, because I am looking for new inputs.
Great, hope you find them fruitful!
I think a lot of the endless growth, progress and improvement is somewhat of a negative mutation. No other creature on earth constantly needs to change and improve.
That said we have done many amazing things, and no one wants to go back. But constant improvement just for improvement seems wrong.
Capitalism and the economy are all based on endless growth and most people will not give up anything or let go of it at this point (the cats out of the bag). It will take a very huge shift probably caused by something very bad to change most people’s ways.
While it’s not the mainstream, it’s not everyone that constantly wants more. There are many religious orders that practise asceticism, voluntary simplicity, and other behaviours which are not growth focused. Minimalism as a movement in western society is genuine. People do sometimes reach a point where they stop being seduced by consumerism, realising it doesn’t bring the happiness it falsely promises.
I agree, our ambition seems useful at first but tends to become a curse once we have what we need. If you take space exploration as an example, I feel that until we go to mars humanity is always going to want to go to mars. And then, we will want to do the next thing. It’s not a matter of if, it’s a matter of when, assuming we can. If we can, we will.
Unfortunately, a very annoying human happens to be leading this effort at the moment.
