I honestly don't think it's that simple. Read Ishmael. We have a culture that is broken, and has been for much longer than capitalism has been around. Capitalism has turbo charged the obsession with growth, for sure, but ever since we decided we were above nature and unique and special as a species, we have been going in the wrong direction.
this post was submitted on 24 May 2025
16 points (100.0% liked)
Degrowth
1221 readers
2 users here now
Discussions about degrowth and all sorts of related topics. This includes UBI, economic democracy, the economics of green technologies, enviromental legislation and many more intressting economic topics.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I think you're giving the author too little credit. They talk of the necessity of establishing solidarity outside the preconceived circle of caring, which can directly be understood to include the rest of nature.
The author doesn't give an indication either way, so perhaps they should have been more explicit if they agree with you, but "I don't think it's that simple" is a bad way to address that.
Sure, they acknowledge we need to change from obsession with growth and show solidarity with nature, but capitalism isn't the sole culprit as they repeatedly state. We diverged from solidarity with nature long before capitalism was a concept.
What 'ism is congruent with degrowth? I get it, the author hates capitalism, and with good reason. Naming his demon, directly, isn't as useful as he thinks. People don't move away from Capitalism as much as they move toward something else. What is that something else?
The culture war is the class war
I strongly disagree with one of the core arguments of the article. The article describes "concentric circles of caring" - a person caring more about friends than acquaintances than compatriots than others. It then characterizes top-down action as trying to change from the outside in while bottom-up changes from the inside out.
This seems very clearly false. There are many top-down initiatives, like national welfare plans or child support subsidies, that try to work from the inside out. And there are many bottom-up initiatives, like veganism or supporting undocumented refugees, that try to work from the outside in.
As such, the question of outside in and/or inside out bears no relation to top-down or bottom-up. The conclusion of plurality of tactics remains intact, but only because it is the best position in a zero information scenario. (aka: throw spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks).
There are many top-down initiatives, like national welfare plans or child support subsidies, that try to work from the inside out.
national
inside-out
...