What makes it shocking? I don’t know him so I feel like I lack context.
“ Degrowth advocates therefore might have a valid point when they argue for an end to capitalism if they believe that climate change can be stopped only if society is stationary. Stationary society, end of capitalism, and abundance are logically consistent.”
Also this way of thinking about things is looks at change only through the lens of consumerism.
In particular, I think cleaving off capitalism’s territorial claims on market economies is absolutely necessary. They should have no claim to it, especially because it is so adept at destroying market conditions (Marx nailed it rightly).
Of the things that can be said of today’s world, its greatest absurdity’s surely came from the mainstream crusade to commercialize everything. That privatized, deregulated, consolidated war zone they insist is Heaven on Earth.
A world of bakers and cobblers is not the the problem but all of the products made at volume is. Consider also the host of non market entities, like coops, that work fine in a market. They exist for the well-being of its members and not to make profits for stockholders.
I’ll be posting a video that kind of glides through these points; I think what we’d call degrowth is also and largely a choice for an alternate economic story than one told by modern economies and the financial and investment imperatives they creative from them.
UN funding of climate mitigating for poor nations is an example of a modernity dominating the projects.
🧵
Solar and windmills, instead of permaculture+ecological restoration. I’d rather see the basic necessities degrown first. People and towns everywhere be able to cover food, water, energy and housing with local resources only as much as possible. This is de growth and then we can talk about a much more irrelevant global and national supply chain.
Add comment