Degrowth
|
Michael Pugliese <michael.098762001@...>
A few months ago there was a bit of a thread on degrowth here. --
|
|
|
|
David Walters
...evidently no one thought it interesting enough to respond. I will, briefly, now that I actually read Henwoods review (and part of his podcast on it), that he and I think a like. At least a lot of it. I like that he appreciates "Utopian thinking"* as I do and notes the possible Dystopian results (and would add "totalitarian") depending on where one stands and ones proclivities. I think it would be interesting to ask the billions engaged in "farm work" (as Henwood exemplifies from the book) now who would rather be doing something else, at least in the most of the world. Idolize agricultural work and poor peasant farmers, at least under under developed capitalism is, indeed, Dystopian. Having said THAT I do think with modern (please read that as "more energy") agricultural techniques and borrowing from aspects of the past, we should have, say in the U.S. around two to three times the number of folks engaged in farming (there are about 2.5 million out of 320,000,000 engaged in such work now) and cattle rearing than we do now but that is a thoroughly different discussion and falls under the "regenerative agriculture" rubric/thread.
I should point out that "trick" the writers of the book "Half Earth Socialism" that is described by Henwood is certainly not original but I like it anyway. Basically a person from our day and age wakes up in the future where degrowth has been implemented. Think, among many others, Woody Alan's "Sleeper", Jack London's "Iron Heel" (presented as a look backward), Edward Bellemy's (to stick to the Utopian theme) "Looking Backward" and another, H.G. Wells "In the Days of the Comet" where everyone wakes up on the planet as died-in-the-wool Socialists.
It would be good here to have a discussion on "Degrowth" as it is such thing among Greens, Ecosocialists, Socialists, etc etc. *I'm the first one to admit I wish Marx had written a lot more "looking forward" type of speculative socialism and outlined as a thought-experiment the many different (or not) ways he envisioned communism to manifest itself...
|
|
|
|
Mark Baugher
On Oct 17, 2022, at 12:23 PM, Michael Pugliese <michael.098762001@...> wrote:Thanks for pointing that out. I don't think degrowth = utopia though the two people mentioned in the article could be considered utopians IMHO. I also don't think degrowth is anti-Marxist, which was not considered in the cited article but which I recall reading on this list. I understand "degrowth" to be an important concept in ecology, and ecology is by nature historical, and it is concerned very much with the material world's animals and resources. Ecology treats humans as the animals we are. There's a growing bibliography on the topic of Marxism and Ecology (most recently, https://monthlyreview.org/2022/10/01/ecological-civilization-ecological-revolution/). Mark |
|
|
|
Barry Brooks
How could anyone fail to understand that degrowth means less wasteful consumption, and that has nothing to do with "abandoning a comfortable, technologically advanced life..."
Wealth can grow with low rates of consumption if we extend durability, stabilize population, and allow inheritance to provide most durable wealth for the future. A failure to stop hyper-consumption will prevent an "advanced life." If we want advanced technology and a good life we must stop the hyper-consumption needed to create full employment to stay busy. It's not just advanced technology the degrowth will allow; is it a matter of allowing any kind of survival at all. Our productive capacity is far beyond any reasonable need or desire. If we give up keeping our can openers busy would the cook have a job? Let your can openers sit idle until really needed. The cook can use the time in better ways. Wages must become a supplement; not the only source of income in a technologically advanced economy. That would end the "need" for growth. Barry https://lbo-news.com/2022/10/17/comments-on-half-earth-socialism/ I think it’s possible to reconcile a comfortable, technologically advanced life ."with avoiding climate catastrophe. Many hardcore greens dismiss these as “technical fixes,” as if they were some sort of underhanded trick.On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 13:06:41 -0700 |
|
|
|
Michael Yates
Anyone who pays the slightest heed to anything Henwood writes about degrowth is a fool. Henwood is only interested in maintaining his own consumption habits, with the justification that nothing is too good for the working class. He is a fraud if ever there was one. He has accused those who favor a planned degrowth as favoring genocide of 90% of the human race. He thinks we have nothing whatever to learn for gatherers and hunters, despite his complete ignorance of them. Not to mention that is job these many years has been producing a very pricey newsletter aimed at rich investors.
|
|
|
|
Mark Baugher
To me, this is the most important topic discussed on the list, and it is barely discussed.
I don't see how we are going to grow ourselves out of climate catastrophe regardless of the mode of production, particularly not using a detritivorous mode of production. Climate change is only part of it: There are too many people displacing too many other species that feed us and others that we may discover humans really need. If Marxism is going to be relevant in the 21st century, it needs to grapple with ecology in a way that historically has not been the case. Mark |
|
|
|
John Reimann
I used to watch this reality TV show called "Alone" in which they took a group of people and dumped them in some wilderness. They lived alone and competed to see who could survive the longest. Turned out nobody could survive much more than a couple of months. I always figured that they couldn't get enough food because the fish and animal population had declined. After all, peoples had survived in similar environments for hundreds of thousands of years before. It turned out I was right. A recent study showed that 70% of the world's wildlife population has disappeared since 1955, both through outright extinction and population decline. All species live at the expense of other species, but also in dependence of other species. That includes us. As Engels said, we are not separate and outside of nature; we are part of nature, and it is extreme arrogance to think that what happens in the rest of the natural world will not affect us. Unfortunately for the ideas of the capitalist-inspired ecomodernists, there are limits to how much any single species can consume without destroying the environment upon which it depends. We can either lower our overall consumption in a planned and controlled way through socialism, or nature will impose such limits and a catastrophic way. Sorry, comrades, contrary to the view of the capitalist class, we are not more powerful than the laws of nature. “Science and socialism go hand-in-hand.” Felicity Dowling Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com also on Facebook |
|
|
|
Fred Murphy
I'm currently co-leading a Marxist Education Project reading group on Matt Huber's Climate Change as Class War and Schmelzer et al., The Future Is Degrowth.
Besides those books these items may be of interest, especially the Suzelis review from Spectre: Ahern, “Environmentalists Need Unions, Unions Need Environmentalists” (review of Huber) The Trouble 6/7/22 Heron, "The Great Unfettering" (response to Huber review below) – NLR Sidecar, 9/7/22 Huber, “Mish-Mash Ecologism” (review of Schmelzer et al.) NLR Sidecar, 8/18/22 Maddrey, “Class Struggle or Degrowth?” UnevenEarth 8/2022 Pinto, “Is Degrowth the Future?” (review of Schmelzer et al.) Green European Journal 6/28/22 Schmelzer, Twitter thread comparing Huber and Schmelzer et al. 6/8/22 Suzelis, “Class Struggle Against Growth” (review of both books) Spectre 8/25/22 Vansintjan, “Think Smaller” Montreal Review of Books 7/4/22 (interview)
|
|
|
|
Mark Baugher
hi Fred,
On Oct 21, 2022, at 8:02 AM, Fred Murphy <fred.r.murphy@...> wrote:What is the timezone that's announced in https://marxedproject.org/event/climate-class-and-degrowth/2022-10-26/ ? thanks, Mark
|
|
|