- centof ( @centof@lemm.ee ) English41•10 months ago
The article is, in my opinion, purposely mischaracterizing the degrowth movement. I would say degrowth is more a natural reaction to the excesses of capitalism than movement about addressing climate change.
- kugel7c ( @kugel7c@feddit.de ) English3•10 months ago
Isn’t the former very naturally part of the latter though ? And doesn’t the article also raise that point as well? Fundamentally it’s an idea that often gets interpreted through both those lenses because it could help with both conflicts, which is also what by definition is it’s purposely trying to accomplish, the first explicitly and the second is implicit in
… within planetary boundaries.
This connection I think should be embraced because climate change is more attractive as a topic to most people than critiques of capitalism but obviously one leads naturally into the other. Saying that degrowth aims to address climate change is more just a description of partial content rather than a mischaracterization and the body of the article tries reasonably to explain other parts as well, less work and better well being are right there in the title, both not a dishonest description of other parts of the philosophy.
After all no one that accepts degrowth as a concept would answer the question “Should we degrow to combat climate change ?” with a “No” All answers would be “yes and …” or “yes but …”
At the end of the day Vice writing will never be perfect but nowadays for genpop media outlets it tries much harder than most to paint an honest picture of the world, and calling this article a mischaracterization seems to me a little harsh, if you’ve never heard of it the article certainly could honestly teach and spark interest for a this “new” way of thinking, and you need just one word to google to get more rigorous explanation if you wanted it.
- Project_Straylight ( @Project_Straylight@lemmy.villa-straylight.social ) English23•10 months ago
Protip: if you want your movement to gain any political traction, don’t call it the degrowth movement
- BarrelAgedBoredom ( @BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.ee ) English12•10 months ago
What would you call it? Its kinda like the “defund police” thing. If they called it “reallocate police resources” opposition to the movement would just use the stronger “defund police” language as a cudgel to smear it. It’s best to own it and educate
- TheBurlapBandit ( @TheBurlapBandit@beehaw.org ) English5•10 months ago
One Shrinky Dinky movement coming up just for you 😘
- chicken ( @chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) English14•10 months ago
In order to slow the economy down and not wreak havoc, he said, we have to reconfigure our ideas about the entire economic system.
This is how degrowthers envision the process: After a reduction in material and energy consumption, which will constrict the economy, there should also be a redistribution of existing wealth, and a transition from a materialistic society to one in which the values are based on simpler lifestyles and unpaid work and activities.
Sounds good to me. It is a fair point that the basic operation of our society depends on continual growth, but redistribution seems like it would be an effective way of mitigating those problems degrowth might cause. We have more than enough resources to keep everyone alive, we just have to use them.
- PowerCrazy ( @PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml ) English7•10 months ago
I’d rather just do the full communism now path, where once every man, woman and child has all their needs and many of their wants met, there isn’t a desire to chase the next fashion craze, or buy the next iphone or “keep up with the jones’” as it were because the Jones’ have the same stuff you do, but maybe they spend their ample leisure time exercising, you spend your time gardening.
- phoenixz ( @phoenixz@lemmy.ca ) English5•10 months ago
The only way that will work is if you have a violent dictatorship. Welcome Stalin back basically.
I see more future in putting laws in place that severely limits what companies can do. Companies cannot grow beyond 1000 people. Tax any wealth thing heavily. Tax negatively for the poor, tax a little for those with a little and more for those that are better off. Taxes go up and up once you are richer and Once your income and or networth reaches a certain level, tax 100%.
Institute 3-4 work day weeks
Institute universal income
Out extreme limits on advertising and marketing. Those two are the real evils of mankind.
Require news outlets be paid for by the government and be required to be neutral and factual
With changes like that we can remain a (serverely limited) capitalist system that pays for the very nice social system below that doesn’t focus in money anymore
- PowerCrazy ( @PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml ) English4•10 months ago
Laws will be written with loopholes. Just nationalize industry run them for the public rather the for profit and fire the CEOs/Lobbyists and PMC’s that keep Capitalism operating.
Also I’ll take a Stalin for the initial break from Capitalism. After 10ish years, we can go to a more democratic government.
- phoenixz ( @phoenixz@lemmy.ca ) English1•10 months ago
Yeah, good luck with that. Won’t happen. Do you really believe that the 1% will give up it’s riches? Do you really believe that the politicians, you know, the guys with money, will decide on redistribution?
Good luck.
- chicken ( @chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) English2•10 months ago
the politicians, you know, the guys with money
There is overlap, but ultimately it’s not a monolith. Anyone can be a politician and politicians succeed or fail on people voting for them. What are the rich gonna do with ownership of all the land and all the companies and all the resources anyway? Effectively enslave everybody? Wait for us to starve so they can keep playing number-go-up in secure enclaves while the world burns around them?
You mention universal income in another comment. If you do it right, that’s redistribution. You give people the means to keep living, every other problem gets less intense. I think there’s a good chance that when things get bad enough, even hardcore capitalists will go for it because it’s a way for capitalism to continue existing in a form that isn’t a dead useless husk. IMO a much better option than pulling for a civil war hoping the result will be a socialist utopia and not just evil warlords doing evil warlord stuff.
- DogMuffins ( @DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de ) English1•10 months ago
there should also be a redistribution of existing wealth
there should also be unicorns farting rainbows.
- StringTheory ( @StringTheory@beehaw.org ) English9•10 months ago
From the narrowly focused aspect of clothing, what can we do? Repair. Repair your clothes. Don’t throw away a ripped shirt, don’t replace it with a flimsy new shirt made by underpaid workers. Sew it. Patch it. Check your library for books about mending, go to YouTube and seek out basic repair videos. A packet of needles, a thimble, a spool of black thread, and a spool of white thread will take care of the majority of repairs. What you can’t do yourself can be handled by your neighborhood laundry or dry cleaner.
Practice radical repairing. Mend your way to a better world.
- Kirkkh ( @Kirkkh@lemm.ee ) English9•10 months ago
I think this used to be called saving.
- Marxist_Bear ( @Marxist_Bear@midwest.social ) English7•10 months ago
Yes, we’ll save ourselves by resetting the clock and never undoing the conditions that led to where we are
- lemmy689 ( @lemmie689@lemmy.sdf.org ) English7•10 months ago
“Turn on, tune in, drop out” 2.0
- Possibly linux ( @possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip ) English4•10 months ago
That also means massive unemployment
- stembolts ( @stembolts@programming.dev ) English14•10 months ago
Look around you. Are there things to be done? Parks to be cleaned? Old houses to be renovated? Run down areas of town? Are there any hungry children in nearby schools? If you answered yes to any of those, then there is work to be done.
Why, if there is work to be done, is it not getting done? What type of society undervalues such critical work such that you would look at the state of the work and think that there is not enough work for everyone to contribute.
There are plenty of jobs, there is infinite work, but the current value system doesn’t incentivise this work that would improve everyone’s life.
So two questions.
- Why doesn’t the current system value this work?
- What would the world look like of that type of work was valued?
That in mind, given that you assume mass unemployment, which is questionable at best, reconsider why that would be. Who, or what, would be the cause?
- AnAngryAlpaca ( @AnAngryAlpaca@feddit.de ) English2•10 months ago
There are a lot of BS jobs that don’t create any value (real estate agents, advertising, …) and a lot of work that is not getting done because nobody would pay for it, for example cleaning up the environment, worker shortage in hospitals and elder care.
- PowerCrazy ( @PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml ) English1•10 months ago
That’s actually a good thing, assuming that employment wasn’t tied to surviving nor thriving.