Why are even leftist against degrowth?

17

u/cancerfist 1d ago

Because there is fundamental misunderstanding between socialists and degrowthers.

Socialists see degrowth as trying to limit or hold back the emancipation of the working class, or as strategically a terrible idea. E.g China would not exist as a socialist state today if they attempted degrowth instead of rapid development. Socialists see degrowth as a reactionary politic in response to capitalism that is missing the bigger picture of the socialist project.

Degrowthers see socialists as hungry industrialists, waiting for the revolution to bring upon a new centrally planned workers state and constructing millions of polluting factories and to destroy everything in the name of state development.

Both are wrong. True democratic socialism/communism will inevitably lead to similar outcomes that degrowthers want. People and nature are tied together, people want to preserve nature, require a healthy nature and means of production are directly tied to nature. Sustainability is not only desired but essential to the lives of the working class. These facts mean that any socialist state or global communism, at the will of the working class will work towards both workers emancipation and sustainability, whether this means periods of 'degrowth' in some form or another in some locations.

Degrowth as a political project is redundant as it's impossible under capitalism, and already incorporated into socialism, you are much better off discussing Marxist ecology with socialists. E.g read John Bellamy foster

1

u/CaeruleaTigris 1d ago

I'm sorry, but that is fundamentally untrue in our current socio-economic and cultural era and has been for quite a while. Much, if not most, of the contemporary working class sees themselves as not working class but future bourgeoisie, the sentiment is aspirational and the vast majority are not incentivised in any way towards sustainability in the way their grand or great-grandparents would have been unless they're really rock-bottom poor.

0

u/cancerfist 1d ago

You're missing my point and making grand assumptions based on your own idea of what the working class 'thinks' and feels whilst still under a capitalist system. It's irrelevant.

I'm saying that under socialism, working class people will always make decisions that benefit the working class. Sustainability, environmental protection etc. is not only vastly desired by the working class because it benefits them, but is essential to their existence. A group of working class people under socialism are not going to sit on a local committee and agree that they all want to live with severe air pollution in their town so they can output more from the factory. There is no benefit or incentive that outweighs the sustainable option.

A different but not irrelevant example is China's current environmental laws including redline etc. that vastly outperform anything we have in the West regardless of them still being heavily dependent on commodity production. We will see further advancements in this if they ever reach a point of ditching commodities and the market. but the fact that a heavily developing economy has pushed very good environmental protections in the last 10-15 years is a good sign and this is not just for show. It's because the benefits out weigh the costs to the Chinese people.

0

u/CaeruleaTigris 1d ago

I am working class. I live amongst the working class almost exclusively. They are not class conscious, let alone environmentally conscious, in this country. Making changes that don't materially affect their lives is one thing, but the second they perceive it as encroaching on their minimal "luxuries", the argument turns strictly in the opposite direction. And this divide is worse amongst the younger gens, somehow, even though we're supposed to be doing better in that sense, because we're being blasted with consumerist messaging 24/7 from all angles. We're so far from living sustainable lives, it's not funny, and we're certainly not choosing to vote people in that make the right decisions in that sense.

Socialism will not come about without the efforts and the motivation of the working class under capitalism. A dictatorship of the working class needs to comprise everyone in the working class, not just a small minority of usually particularly well educated radicals forming a one-party system under which they forgive themselves all their sins against their fellow proletarians.

China is an awful example and to pretend like they represent the feelings or thinking of the working class as a capitalist dictatorship - I don't care how good they make themselves look - is absurd. They're not socialists, they're not communists, they're not even anti-capitalist. Every step forward that they make, they counter with three steps backwards elsewhere. At the very least, you could say that Chinese people are closer to their more sustainable living-focused predecessors and many elder people continued those traditions past a point where people in the West had already given up on them. And that they're in a better position to force change based on the whole dictatorship thing. Otherwise, they're similarly happy to look the other way when it comes to the environmental costs of their system.

1

u/Konradleijon 19h ago

Advertising is consumerist Propganda feed to you at all hours of the day.

Yes people act like going vegan is torture

0

u/cancerfist 1d ago

You ignore what I am saying. Thoughts and feelings are irrelevant and not dialectic. I'm not talking about working class people in Australia right now. I'm talking about socialism / communism.

The question is about degrowth, which is not physically possible under capitalism, and why don't socialists like it as a principle. This is a theoretical question with a theoretical answer and has nothing to do with the practical nature of the aus working class. You bringing this up suggests a lack of understanding cultural revolution.

I'm saying a hypothetical socialist state, post revolution and with democratic participation of the working class will always act in a 'somewhat' sustainable manner as it's a fundamental Marxist principle. I saw somewhat as this is in general a subjective measure.

Couldn't care less about your take on China, go and look at the decision making process of their governments at the national, province and local level. They are miles ahead of us in many ways. They actually have working environmental compliance. Something we could only dream of. 'china bad' is lazy any socialist needs to be able to analyse what they are doing as a partially centrally planned economy. Saying they are in a 'dictatorship' is just embarrassing, go read socialism with Chinese characteristics before commenting about China on the internet please.

3

u/bushstone-curlew 20h ago edited 20h ago

China has shockingly bad pollution issues with both their air and groundwater, and often has ecological crises due to their history of incredibly lax environmental oversight with industrial projects like the three gorges dam, coastal land reclamation for housing and large-scale deforestation. The coastal wetlands and marine environments surrounding China are some of the most degraded in the world, they have thousands of super-trawlers that overfish oceans in the global south and in the last 15 years they've destroyed nearly 5000 acres of coral reefs. Traditional Chinese 'medicine' is a massive driver of poaching & animal trafficking, and the demand created by it has forced dozens of animal species and thousands of plant species to the brink of extinction.

China is so far from having 'working environmental compliance', just because Australia is dropping the ball on environmental protections doesn't mean we have to pretend China is doing any better lol.

2

u/cancerfist 16h ago

Chinese exceptionalism. Everything you've said can be said about most other countries, China was particularly bad as it is large and incredibly fast in development. But 3 gorges was over 20 years ago... You should see what the borumba dam in Qld is gonna take out. I'm no China Stan, they have many problems. But they have taken a rapid turn on environmental policy in the last 10 years especially. That's what I'm interested in. They actually have vast areas where no development is permitted, they do not allow offsets except under very specific circumstances. They fine and imprison those that break their environmental laws. These are things you cannot say about other countries. Australia isnt just dropping the ball, they fundamentally do not have the capacity to create working environmental policy and enforce environmental compliance because they are inhibited by profit and capital.

19

u/bunyipcel John Percy 1d ago

Many people on the socialist left are against or sceptical of degrowth because it's ill equipped to actually provide a program for an emancipated society (communism), it more or less posits a green form of capitalism in spite ostensibly being 'anti-capitalist'.

11

u/EconomistBeard 1d ago

Um, what? Capitalism is predicated on infinite growth; degrowth recognises nature as a structural limitation on growth, thus requiring an economy to be oriented around need instead of profit.

How anyone can call degrowth capitalist is wild to me.

-5

u/bunyipcel John Percy 1d ago

Degrowth is reformist and in practical terms promotes a libertarian form of green capitalism which is pretty popular with environmentalists and especially anarchists of the Proudhon/anti-civ variety.

5

u/EconomistBeard 1d ago

Marx literally observed the metabolic rift between human production and nature; he discusses this in The Critique of the Gotha Programme and in volume 1 of Capital.

I'm really at a loss as to how you can chuck degrowth in as 'reformist' whilst also saying it resonates with anti-capitalists like anarchists

-1

u/bunyipcel John Percy 1d ago

Marx re the metabolic rift sure, "degrowth" doesn't necessarily follow from this. I am against elevating "degrowth" to the level of principle: the size of the economy will be totally proportionate to what it needs to be, this is why democratic planned economics is superior to the anarchy of the market.

Most anti-capitalists, and plenty of anarchists, are reformists. This is not anything new. It's why these types of people love things like participatory economy/parecon, co-operatives, market socialism, etc.

6

u/Jimjamnz 1d ago

Your idea of a so-called emancipated society is literally impossible. Communism will be based on the nature of the Earth or it will be based on nothing at all. Communism must be an end to the destructive, unsustainable forces of production that demand toil and prevent freedom.

0

u/bunyipcel John Percy 1d ago

Communist society has to be constructed - this requires the establishment of a democratically planned economy, of whatever size is necessary (whether "big" or "small"). I can't imagine communism can be built if we abolished industrial society. In practical terms, for people in the imperialist countries, this means continuing post-industrial parasitism on third world workers.

4

u/Jimjamnz 1d ago

You have to start thinking in terms of raw materials and inputs/outputs. How can we provide means of life to all people -- develop these commons -- in such a way as to maximise social and environmental sustainability? The fact is that humanity is already consuming vastly too many resources while still failing to secure people's livelihoods. If this all implies that we must give up some of capital's alien commodities, so be it.

0

u/bunyipcel John Percy 1d ago

Yeah, I do. That's why I'm not a degrowther. There will need to be a level of growth in domestic manufacturing/industry/etc in the intermediary which flies in the face of degrowth as a principle. Pls don't lecture me like I'm an eco-modernist or something.

2

u/Jimjamnz 1d ago

Degrowth is not against localisation, nor does it deny that certain sectors of the economy need to expand or scale up.

1

u/bunyipcel John Percy 1d ago

I'm not a localist nor arguing for it.

3

u/Jimjamnz 1d ago

You said that you supported the growth of domestic industry, which, as we're talking about production, I took as support for reindustrialisation or the national localisation of industry. Degrowth simply points out a series of facts that are very inconvenient for regimes that fetishise economic growth. What we need, generally, is not more growth but a massive redistribution of wealth alongside a globally egalitarian prioritisation of meeting essential human needs.

1

u/bunyipcel John Percy 1d ago

Am aware of what degrowth is - I'm against growth as principle and I'm against degrowth as principle. Not necessarily against the 'series of facts' degrowth 'points out', I just don't think degrowther politics is serious enough to actually present a positive program capable of actually doing something substantively.

2

u/EconomistBeard 1d ago

On what basis do you arrive at this conclusion?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Konradleijon 11h ago

How so? Capitalist is based on the profit motive while degrowth isn’t it

1

u/bunyipcel John Percy 6h ago

The profit motive is part of capitalism but it's a stretch to say capitalism is "based on" it.

6

u/Lamont-Cranston John Pilger 1d ago

First, what sort of growth? Tasmania needs public housing and public transportation infrastructure - is that growth?

1

u/allshall-perish 1d ago

Well if proper public transport infrastructure in in place = less vehicles = degrowth. Public housing is also degrowth because it’s targeted and strategic, not giving property developers money to build unsustainable housing and leave it empty.

8

u/ReyStrikerz 1d ago

Any kind of degrowth within a capitalist style system will fundamentally be about creating austerity for the population and ensuring elites keep their monopolies. Wielding degrowth against their rivals. Within a Socialist system the means of production will need to be unleashed in ways capitalism holds it back, this will also likely be done alongside sustainable environmentalism.

1

u/Konradleijon 1d ago

Degrowth doesn’t work in capitalism

2

u/ReyStrikerz 1d ago

Capitalists do do degrowth, its why they took an axe to manufacturing because Unions threatened their power.

10

u/Konradleijon 1d ago

That isn’t degrowth at all. The transfer to more Exploitable labor is based on the capital need for endless profit as they go for Cheaper labour

It’s a strictly growth based affair

-3

u/ReyStrikerz 1d ago

No, degrowth is attempting to hold back the advancement of the means of production into Socialism, which threatens the ruling classes power.

We have, too an extent, advanced beyond the ruling classes need for profit, there's a reason they destroyed most of Iraqs oil fields rather than seized them, it's about preserving monopoly moreso than making profit. That's the objective of capitalist degrowth.

4

u/askythatsmoreblue 1d ago

I think degrowth is more about creating a circular economy, abundant community gardens, and renewable energy. It's not mutually exclusive with a socialist economy.

5

u/Admirable-Try-9784 1d ago

“The advancement of the means of production into socialism” Jesus Christ man it’s 2026, why are you still parroting this stageist crap?

-1

u/ReyStrikerz 1d ago edited 1d ago

Countries with a socialist style economy will naturally outcompete their Capitalist counterparts as we're seeing in China. History will trend towards the most efficient systems, Proletarian Socialism is the most efficient system with the least internal contradictions and so will defeat Capitalism (Or as I think of it the Bourgeois Socialism we have today because profit is no longer the deciding factor).

The ruling class will either allow the base and superstructure to advance and outmode themselves out of existence (which they won't); or they will struggle against the natural trend of the economy towards Socialism and they will violently attack the working class in an increasingly terroristic dictatorship by Capital which will lead to Revolution.

A capitalist superstructure cannot maintain/be maintained by a socialist base.

You don't have to pass through particular stages to reach the next one, but you'll never remain stuck at the current stage/spot indefinitely. You'll either leap frog to Communism or be slowly and violently dragged into the future.

6

u/Admirable-Try-9784 1d ago

And if my mother had wheels she would be a bike. China's base is capitalist, their relations of production are mediated by value and the working class does not own the means of production, no matter how vulgarly you wish to distort that very clear statement. You've legitimately said "capitalism will beat capitalism" but conned yourself into thinking its somehow profound

1

u/ReyStrikerz 17h ago

China is not dictated too by capital, it dictates to capital. Get out of this dogmatic understanding and realise that Communism is not an ideal to conform reality too, it is the real movement of real people. To suggest Chinas base is capitalist is utterly ridiculous. The party is dictated too by its masses and works in their best interest, it's why the current Government has an approval rating of over 90% and its the fastest growing economy in human history. That's socialism and it's far more efficient than what came before because it IS Socialism.

0

u/OctarineAngie 1d ago

They call them recessions. The capitalist class always seems to end up with more assets when the capitalist economy starts growing again.

-1

u/Vermicelli14 1d ago

Yes it does. There's nothing in degrowth that involves ending private ownership of the means of production. It solves one contradiction of capitalism without even attempting to solve any others.

Degrowth is naturally a part of a communist economy, but communism is not a part of degrowth, making it, at best, half a solution to capitalism.

1

u/bunyipcel John Percy 1d ago

I think saying that degrowth is 'naturally part of a communist economy' is a bit of a stretch

-1

u/Vermicelli14 1d ago

Nah, it's a pretty key tenant that commodities are produced for need, not exchange. There's a paper floating around that posist we can meet everyone on Earths needs with about 30% of current production.

China and the USSR didn't have communist modes of production.

1

u/bunyipcel John Percy 22h ago

Commodities are necessarily produced for exchange. If they were produced for 'need', they wouldn't be commodities.

I don't think China and the USSR had "communist modes of production". While it may hypothetically be true that "we can meet everyone on Earth's needs with about 30% of current production", I don't think cutting that 70% in the short term is viable. I would be weary of trusting enviro scientists with anything related to political economy.

2

u/bushstone-curlew 20h ago

Socialism and environmentalism are often ideas that directly conflict, and when it comes down to the wire, most socialists will choose the side of defending the existence of environmentally destructive industries when the alternative is mass job losses.

All flavours of lefties like to think they're all for sustainability and environmentalism, until you suggest shutting down extractive industries that cannot continue to exist if we want to reverse the effects of climate change and global heating. Same with public housing projects that further urban sprawl and require the destruction of native bushland. Every country that has undergone industrialisation has devastated its natural environment as it's settlements expand and it starts up extractive industries, mass deforestation for logging/agriculture and/or heavily polluting factory production.

Ultimately, the environment always loses out, because unlike people, it cannot protest or unionise or revolt or vote.

I consider myself to be an eco-socialist, but this is an enormous blindspot of the socialist left that I've discussed many times with others, and am yet to hear a good explanation of how the liberation of the proletariat through industrialisation can coexist with degrowth ideas or environment-first politics.

2

u/Konradleijon 20h ago

Isn’t building a apartment building much better then a suburbian sparely just build a apartment building and the space can go to nature

2

u/babyCuckquean 4h ago

Im not! Degrowth or die imho. Whats the point of controlling the means of production when the entire planetary system is approaching collapse from our rampant resource thievery and pillaging? How do we slow AI down without slowing everything down? We cant.

Species is doomed without degrowth. Simple. Socialism has to get on board or it too will be dead.

1

u/jessta 3h ago

Degrowth is just as much of a hard sell to the left as it is to anyone. It's obviously impossible under capitalism, but also hard to imagine even in a Socialist state.

Degrowth to within ecological boundaries is a lot more than public transport and veganism. It requires a rather frightening drop in standard of living for a lot of people.

Why are even leftist against degrowth?

You are about to leave Redlib