The issue with Degrowth discourse

I saw someone share this statement online and it raised a fundamental issuee that I’d lilke to record our thoughts on here.

“If you think you don’t want to live in a #Degrowth world then you don’t understand what the alternative will be like.”

The pursuit of economic growth is destroying the environment, #Degrowth is necessary for survival but, under capitalism, with the existence of billionaires the only way for ordinary people to improve their prospects is waiting for the crumbs thrown by the real benefactors of economic growth. People know this and so naturally, they will ask:

How can my living standards rise any higher if the economy doesn’t grow?

Talking about Degrowth without addressing this question is dismissive of legitimate concerns based on the mainstream understanding of economics, likely leading to a dismissal of #Degrowth

So, here is what we think degrowth advocates cannot afford to leave out of their communication of the concept.

We have to radically redistribute wealth, at least. We are communists, we believe in expropriation and common ownership of the means of production but, putting aside what we would prefer,

Degrowth would not hurt them but this is only true if we redistribute so our advocacy for degrowth must include explaining the policies that mean we don’t have to grow the economy to improve lives. That means, if not socialism, and expropriation then at least an aggressive Keynesianism capable of constraining capitalism’s destructive impulses when driven only by profit.

It is true that we are Marxists and therefore are opposed to any form of capitalism but I mention this because even if you are convinced capitalism is inescapable, there is infact an alternative to neoliberalism so it seems surely you should be able to call for that.

. We however feel that the only honest way of explaining why degrowth won’t hurt people is to clearly explain for wha is necessary for this to be true.

The redistribution (we’d say expropriation) needed to facilitate this transformation and the redistrubution that would result from a change of priorty on profit is an issue we must address.

If our solidarity is real this must also include the international capital and technology transfers from wealthy required to avert unforgivable human loss. The other thing that must sit along side all of our climate activism, especially if you believe it is no longer possible to limit temp rises to 1.5, is advocating for their relocation.

Again, we can do none of this if we let the rich stay rich.

This is why any who talks about population control before they call to expropriate from this rich is an enemy. It is profoundly wrong to be happier to see nations die than take from the rich what infact they did not earn.

Every climate activist needs to decide if they are trying to advance the change we need at the speed necessary to save disappearing island nations. Letting those populated islands disappear is genocide. These are the stakes, don’t ever forget it.