Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Hi
Interesting thread! As part of my PhD thesis, I am currently using CasP to analyse obstacles to degrowth transformations.
I just wanted to point out that degrowth is not a synonym of negative growth. I think economists (even many heterodox ones) tend to make this simplification because it fits well with their models. Degrowth – from my point of view -, is more an idea that promotes a mosaic of social processes, from collective experiments to oppositional and political movements – at a variety of scales – challenging the institutions underpinning growth. In the degrowth narrative, it is through these processes that a degrowth society could emerge. Therefore, I don’t think the feasibility of degrowth should be explored by asking “what happens to capitalism when GDP growth is negative?” (otherwise it is definitely an interesting question though). Negative growth might result from degrowth processes if they are successful. But well before that, degrowth transformations could influence differential accumulation patterns, challenge the architecture of capitalist power, and spark reactions from some specific groups of capitalists or dominant capital as a whole.
Regarding your questions, Brian, my thoughts,
1) If the propensity to consume is higher for low/middle class than for capitalists/absentee owners, more income equality might mean more consumption per capita (and thus more environmental footprint per capital). But it is economicist thinking. Capitalists instead of spending their money in consumption, use it to buy commodified power. It is not straightforward to assess the impact of commodified power, but it definitely has (major) consequences for the environment – because it shapes the institutions of society, including the very patterns of consumption.
2) As a non-economist I don’t know, but interesting question!
Cheers
Julien
