Update: Mindless downvotes will be taken as evidence that degrowthers (of which I am one) are not capable of defending their ideas. What’s the point of a community where one only sees things that confirm one’s biases? I don’t get it. Maybe this lazy tribal attitude helps explain why degrowth is so deeply unpopular.
This seems as good a presentation as we’ll get of the case against degrowth. Namely that it’s a political loser, the environment be damned. People in this community probably want to read things they already agree with (update - they sure do). I’d say we’d do better by first taking seriously the arguments of the other side. Which appear quite solid, to the point that it’s hard to know how to go about countering them.
Some choice excerpts:
Most Americans care deeply about building wealth: Roughly 79 percent describe their money as “extremely” or “very” important to them. Eighty-four percent say there’s “nothing wrong” with trying to make as much money as possible […]
In 2024 […] Trump made major gains in large, immigrant-rich urban counties, where service-sector employment is dominant. […] Why did these previously stalwart Democrats break for Trump? Because they are all upwardly mobile groups, for whom pocket-book issues are central. More than progressive pandering, they want the opportunity to participate in the American dream—and Trump seemed to promise that. […]
To their credit, some liberals have tried to fill the void created by this anti-capitalist conservatism. The Atlantic’s Derek Thompson and his co-author, Ezra Klein, have pushed for an “abundance” liberalism in their new book […] [W]e now have two major parties infected by the gospel of no-wealth. Both parties embrace, in Klein and Thompson’s phrasing, a “scarcity” mindset rather than an “abundance” mindset.
I’ll bite.
The selections you’ve included are really weak.
Most Americans think wealth is important? Yeah, because the medical system will literally let you die if you’re poor. The justice system works differently if you have money and the poor are more likely to be policed. Lots of people are dangerously close to homelessness and more are becoming so as people get priced out of housing.
Upward mobility is a sham. The best indicator of if you’ll be wealthy in the future is if your parents are. That’s due to a bunch of different factors, but being able to afford healthcare, good schools, being able to recover from mistakes and accidents, and plain old intergenerational wealth.
I don’t know what your point is about scarcity vs abundance mentality, but when pretty much every single aspect of ones life is improved by money, yeah, people want it. Making sure basic needs like healthcare and housing would go a long way towards getting people less desperate for money and exacerbating the cycle by doing whatever capital wants regardless of larger consequences just to not die.
So I don’t think you have any good points that the people in this community haven’t thought about and generally already come to a conclusion about. You’re doing the equivalent of going into a vegan community and saying “bUT aNImALs Are kIllEd farmInG THE PlAntS You eAt” and thinking it’s clever.
Anyway, here’s my down vote. It’s not mindless; it is filled with intention and consideration.
My point is that the abundance “mentality”, which is in fact a fully fledged school of thought and was already an integral part of rightwing economics, is now gaining ground quickly on the left too. In the public arena, degrowth is currently losing the debate before our eyes. That is my point. Is it irrelevant to raise an inconvenient truth in this community? Would it be better if nothing was said about it?
The substance of your rebuttal to the “really weak” arguments presented is that that people are confusing their desire for wealth with their inner yearning for non-ruinous healthcare and access to justice. That must be true to some extent. But it does seem to cherry-pick what, for instance, Trump-voting immigrants themselves say about the American Dream. And it’s pretty unsatisfactory as an answer the abundance agenda, which is both environmentally illiterate and a clear vote-winner.
If a downvote in response to a carefully composed and good-faith attempt at discussion on a super on-topic subject is “intentional”, then personally I think the intention is problematic. But then I think that downvoting is almost always toxic, so we will probably have to disagree on this one. And in any case I don’t debate with people who downvote me, so that’s the end of this discussion.
I don’t think this adds to the community and it seems others agree. You can blame others all you want, or you can take the hint. If you want to talk about this topic, find a better way that’s clearer and doesn’t have to go through several iterations to get your actual point across. I hope you find a way to have the discussion you want to have.
The discussion I wanted to have (unrealistically, yes) was over what might be a winning response to the argument presented. Because it’s a powerful one, it’s very clearly in the ascendant, and I care about how best to counter it. Apparently you do not.
Well what brought you to degrowth? Why do you see the argument against degrowth convincing or powerful? Why do haven’t you turned your back on degrowth because of the argument? If it’s just that some people have that view and you want to evangelize, I’ve got some bad news for you about changing people’s viewpoints with rhetoric. I don’t need your answers to these questions (though feel free to write them out if that helps), but they might be a good spot to start from to find something that will resonate a bit more or be more useful to you.
Anyway, I’m checking out. Cheers.