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.
It’s not “rich” that people want to be its well off. Once most people reach a certain point of comfort and access to resources demand for things levels off. So the trick is to make access to the basic goods/services cheap or free and stop the excessive consumption like mansions and private jets. Equating Degrowth economics to returning to poverty is politically setting the idea up for failure. Degrowth should be about telling people that they will still have plentiful access to food, water, shelter and energy. They just won’t be having private jet packs or luxury cars anymore.
It’s not “rich” that people want to be its well off. Once most people reach a certain point of comfort and access to resources demand for things levels off.
But is that true? We know that the 1% are consuming and polluting as much as the 90%. This suggests that, in the absence of constraint, demand does not in fact level off. Marxist dogma notwithstanding, I think the evidence of 300 years of capitalism is that needs can be satisfied but desires never can. And that many humans do in fact just want to be richer than those around them, because we are a social species and wealth is the main marker of status.
Equating Degrowth economics to returning to poverty is politically setting the idea up for failure. Degrowth should be about telling people that they will still have plentiful access to food, water, shelter and energy.
Agreed, basically. But “plentiful” energy is looking hard to pull off for 9 billion people in the medium term. Same for food if that means meat, which alas it will. There are unfortunately hard limits that apply even to your modest sales pitch.
beginning to associate that insatiable desire for domination and higher status with the mental illness that it is would be a good step. meanwhile, i think some of the assumptions in the article of immigrant communities breaking with the democrats in the US due to simple financial motivat are missing the party’s complete failure to give a shit beyond thoughts and prayers for anyone that can’t pay for the gerontocracy to get reelected. the prospect of the required fundamental change is incompatible with the system in place. many people just wanted something that seemed actually different, for accellerationist purposes or just to see a lot of the rich people mad at the other rich people.
How do you determine which downvotes are mindless and which are considered?
Given that my contributions are always made in good faith, and that I always choose to assume good faith on the part of others, I consider all downvotes to be poisonous. “Mindless” is the generous hypothesis.
I’m still drinking my coffee, so if you’re joking I apologize for not picking that up. But downvotes are critique. No one enjoys critique, but it’s not poisonous. It’s how we learn and grow.
Even if you make your comments in good faith you can still have an opinion people think is misinformed or bad. And if you reject all critique you’re cutting off your own opportunity to learn.
you can still have an opinion people think is misinformed or bad
The article does not represent my opinion. Never mind. My attempt at stimulating a debate by means of a contrary viewpoint did not go well and I will bear that in mind before trying anything similar in this community again.
I was referring to when you said that you consider all downvotes poisonous.
My point is that if you live your life in a way where you create an excuse to dismiss anyone who disagrees with you, you foreclose on logic, and growth, and really your ability to persuade people too.
And in return, my own condescending advice to you is that if you boo and jeer people in preference to engaging them in constructive debate, then you should not be surprised when they withdraw to more welcoming spaces where people behave with the civility that we all consider normal in person.
You can disable downvotes if you like. You simply will not be bothered unless someone has the courage to speak up. And the totals you’ll see will be based on upvotes alone
It’s not mindless downvoting—I just think you haven’t put forth a convincing argument. Do some reading on dominant ideology and manufacturing consent. Then ask yourself why consumerism and the glorification of wealth are so prevalent in western capitalist societies such as the USA. This of course is just the cherry on top considering lots of americans are living paycheck to paycheck and are quite literally one medical emergency away from becoming homeless—having more money improves your quality of life considerably in this system and most people are faaar away from having the amount of wealth where you’d get diminishing returns from having more.
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.
So are basically all progressive or revolutionary political movements before they gain traction. Republicanism (as opposed to monarchy), women’s suffrage, civil rights, queer rights… What’s your point here? People’s minds can be changed, especially in a world in which the shortcomings of the status quo become more and more apparent.
What’s your point here? People’s minds can be changed
Go on then, change them. That’s my point. That’s why I posted this. It’s an article that expresses decently a viewpoint that is completely incompatible with degrowth and yet is currently fashionable and very widely held.
Your counter-argument is “Do some reading” and “Wait and in the end we will win”.
I’d love to have a six figure salary. not to blow on consumption but to have security and also start a commune
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.
I don’t know what your point is about scarcity vs abundance mentality,
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.
carefully composed
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.
