What's leftypol opinion on economic decrease as alternative to capitalism?

If we're taking over, say, France, then yeah the five year plan will be based around degrowth as well as nationalization of industry and collectivized agriculture

Attached: tumblr_ogsjz7P8QI1vivde4o1_1280.png (792x1185, 1.25M)

We don't have an alternative, if we don't start to degrowth we all going to die or return to preindustrial levels after a big human dieoff in 20 years.

yeah, I think we have now a chance to change the system, synce the big companies now have realized they need to recover the enviromental damage.

Also the mindset change from growth to productivity and efficiency, which will be the upcoming system.

Sounds like you just mentioned the alternative yourself. The profit motive is like the AI problem: All it wants to do after its creation is pursue profit.

I think we can alleviate some of the damage by doing things like switching from farm animals to lab grown meat and rewilding what used to be dairy and pork farms. We can plant trees to reverse desertification like Thomas Sankara.

yeah, I'm not big into marxism, partly because I haven't read it, but because It doesn't click with me.

I just wanted to know what's leftypol opinion on degrowth.

Is growth really the problem or just that "economic growth" in the present sense is based upon consumerism?

We can't simply waste finite resources on useless comsuption.

It would probably be the last resort but still one of the top options for socialists.

It would never happen under capitalism. A world driven by billionaires, hedge funds and stock portfolios doesn't account for anything more than profit.

automation will mean there will be less demand for workers.

how are companies going to sell their products to unemployed people?

You should read about dialectics, if you read Mao's "Handling Contradictions among the People", "On Practice", and "On Contradiction" your understanding of how the motions of history work will make Marxism click with you. Read Spinoza too if you want a non-Marxist source that will lead you to more understanding of philosophy.

They'll probably end up doing UBI

is something the degrowth claims as alternative, as changing the private car for public transportations and local production.

All in the name of less waste of resources.

yeah, I guess I need to start to read the critiques of capitalism.

This is a Marxist talking point and one of the reasons why Marxists consider the collapse of capitalism inevitable.

I mean, if you produce for use under communism that would unfuck the problem no?

I don't think you understand what capitalism is

What's the deal with all the vegan/anprim/degrowth threads lately?

The UN climate summit made people freak out about the miniscule amount of time (~12 years) we have to surmount capitalism before we make the planet irreversibly uninhabitable for humans Obviously many will swing all the way to what they perceive to be the most radical solutions, some of which are welcome but others are pure idealism and should be abandoned. Now it's a matter of sorting the ideological wheat from the chaff

degrowth is the most naive socdem/libshit idea to date. endless growth is the very raison d'être of capitalism.

What? Liberals are all caught up in green growth right now. Degrowth is anti-capitalist.

Does it change the mode of production or merely regulate it?

Every degrowth advocate I've read wishes to end commodity production and distribute goods based off of need or are some kind of neofeudalist or a primitivist so I'd say they would like to drastically alter the mode of production. But regardless of that the central demand of degrowth can be applied in both the short and long term (under capitalism and a future socialism). In the short term we need to degrow/shrink the economies of the West so we can allot the bulk of the remaining carbon budget to the global south in order for them to build up the necessary infrastructure to hopefully mitigate the worst effects of climate change. And within a communist economy the question of growth will still remain. If you expect everyone to have a Western living standard then you're advocating for massively unsustainable economic growth which has similar, albeit possibly less aggressive, impacts on the environment to what we've already seen.

I see, so it's like a parallel project? I can't really see it happening under capitalism as it's contradictory as fuck (nobody will pay for lobbying for lower growth, for example) but I can see the reasoning behind it.
I don't know enough about alternative resources to really make any alternative suggestions, but obviously if there is not enough resources to carry on in even the short term then there is no other solution than to consume less of the resources we do.

there's not alternative, or we start to degrowth, or we all make earth unsustainable for life in 20 years.

Attached: 26051202.jpg (2282x1397, 413.09K)

Isn't this image several years old?

the point stands, if the thirld world start to develop we'll have less than 20 years at increased consumption levels.

My point was more along the lines that if it's correct at the time of it being made there is actually less time than stated on the image.

actually world consumption is going down (see oil price), so is not like people are consuming more when they're drown in debt.

We need to critically support the bankers in their fight against popular purchasing power. For the environment!

global consumption levels are going down, how do u sustain a growth model with that?

Tbh I was just joking and I haven't really put much thought into this aside from the fact that unlimited growth seems like a fiction (barring our departure from the limits of this planet, of course).
That said, I think we could manage fine at far lower growth levels (or even negative) if only resources were more equitably shared. The importance of economic growth to cope with population growth only makes sense if you disregard the option of greater wealth distribution (which is why so many bourgeois politicians emphasize growth so much, I guess).

You can seperate the vegans from the anprims/degrowth types, the vegans are mostly just opportunists looking for scenarios in which they can shoehorn their moralism without ever actually wanting to have a discussion about the wider problems with Ecology & Environmentalism unless it leads back to Veganism. Whilst I think Anprims are technically Reactionary I at least respect them because they aren't moralists and actually consider the logical conclusions of their positions in an attempt to find solutions to our problems.

Under communism, without national borders, and without the profit motive, the world could harness electricity from one place and send it to another. Without nations, any part of the world is as "liveable" once it has similar infrastructure.

Imagine a metropolis in the Congo, powered by solar power in the Sahara, for free (as would be universal).