just look at these nonthreatening birds
Your discourse is needlessly aggressive.
Your examples about centralizing production or eliminating useless capitalists middlemen would be great for efficiency, but it does not put water back into aquifers or fish into the sea. The degrowth movement is primarily concerned that our economic systems are in the pursuit of unlimited growth on a planet with a fixed biocapacity. It is nonsensical and will ultimately harm all of us by reducing the planet’s ability to recover (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPb_0JZ6-Rc a discussion about the world’s current biocapacity). What you’re claiming is austerity they would paint as sustainable well-being for all not just temporary affluence for a few.
While both degrowth proponents and eco-facists admittedly start with similar propositions about the environment, their conclusions and solutions are not the same. Degrowth movements do not advocate for the punishing of or limitations on the global south (as opposed to “the third world”) but instead propose self-determination and assistance in development. Also, degrowth movements deeply encourage socialist ideals.
Your closing remark is cruel, why are you being cruel on a forum that is meant to be a welcoming place to your fellow leftists (jk you’re all liberals but me)? What does this accomplish?
That makes sense and wasn’t abundantly clear initially. It’s all good man.
In your opinion though, is there no compromise between “we need to live more sustainably” and “we must improve the condition of the western worker”? A socialized redistribution of wealth would ideally be able to provide all with a comfortable living while creating an economy focused on satisfying needs rather than “magic line go up forever”, no?
There are undoubtedly bad actors out there using ecologically themed arguments to say “and this is all the fault of the browns”, but I think saying degrowthers are co-opting their movement is backwards. I think the degrowth’s movement has been co-opted by bad actors because their base tenets grounded in environmental science are so solid. It feels unfair to lump them in with the likes of the neo-malthusians and eco-fascists.
I’m not clear on what “degrowth” actually means. Decline in GDP? Decline in resource usage? Decline in standard of living?
Are we talking about less funko pops, or less air conditioning, or less antibiotics?
Is the conversation around this ambiguous in general, or am I just not informed?
Edit: why is this Downvoted, I really wanted to know, fuck me for not knowing something.
I’m not an economist so I don’t have data on hand, but the idea that socialist economy is capable of providing everything everyone consumes and more out of the gate without expected ecological destruction sounds idealistic.
You push this degrowth shit and it’s 100% going to be the third world feeling the vast majority of it
Why? Capitalists aren’t going for degrowth in a million years and you would expect world communist government not to treat third worlders as second class citizens.
