LR 130 - Degrowth Isn't Just Bad Politics, It's Bad Economics w/ Cale Brooks

This conversation could use a contrasting perspective- happy to chat via phone if interested. Firstly, I think a majority of pro degrowth folks are not ideological like the PMC who y'all dislike- they just resonate with the obviously true messaging (that we are using too many resources & it is not sustainable). I myself saw lots of climate scientists talking about degrowth and I was just happy they had a political ideology at all. "We produce too much useless shit" isn't a bad argument, they just need to reframe it to "we produce too much shit instead of giving people Healthcare, housing, quality food, education, etc". Secondly,, the technocratic aspect of degrowth is largely correct by my account- it doesn't look like we can decarbonize the planet fast enough to stick below 2C. Fortunately, that threshold looks more attainable if per capita consumption decreases. A >1.5C planet is going to be increasingly prone to global famine and a monumental supply chain collapse. This isnt even to mention the direct ecological damage caused by industrial production- fish free oceans and unfarmable land. As materialists, you should not ignore these (likely) material realities. The above is informed by my interpretation of climate models (I'm a PhD engineer, not that such a PMC status means anything these days..) Thirdly, like it or not, the west is a collection of consumption economies- we burn carbon by buying useless shit & work at carbon producing jobs that provide no real service outside of profit. Western demand fuels growing (coal-powered) industrial economies in the developing world. We are in a fucking pickle- the west needs to decarbonize first & will likely have to slow consumption, this will trigger a crisis in developing economies that depend on western demand. In this sense, the entire economy needs to be restructured away from the current consumption model that drives "growth". If you want to redefine the metric of growth to something that it currently isn't, you miss the point of the argument- that we can't decarbonize without slowing consumption. Why does this matter? Because while Marxist analysis is surely necessary, it may not be sufficient for preventing climate collapse. As yall discussed, a socialist globe wouldn't inherently overcome ecological collapse, especially if socialism isn't even in place in 2023, with 30 years of time left before tipping points are reached. As a socialist I agree that material analysis & working class organizing is the way forward, but people bargaining for better wages, human rights etc. Is not intrinsically coupled to sustainability. If a global working class movement develops w/ enough power to reorganize the economy, it needs to understand the consumption-side issues. Workers will not automatically stop buying plastic bottles, new gadgets or nicer cars. Marx did not concern himself with consumption side issues as they were not relevant to crises of the late 1800s, we should not be so foolish to ignore this side of the economy in 2023. Neverheless, I do agree that the framing of degrowth by PMCs lacks any useful political praxis :)

Daniel Matera