Degrowth

Imagine a movement of passionate students manages to convince half the Western population of the urgent need for decisive climate action. A group of courageous politicians decides to jump on the bandwagon. People take to their bikes en masse. Car sales threaten to plummet and the aviation industry’s turnover is visibly declining. What do you end up with? A recession. Panic. Before you know it, the government is investing taxpayers’ money in promotional videos for the aviation industry.

 

As long as the system doesn’t change, it won’t make much difference if we all switch to electric vehicles or even swap the car for a bicycle. Any measure that is truly successful in reducing our impact on the climate and the environment would reduce turnover to such an extent that we would end up in a so-called recession. We could, of course, try to replace all that polluting industry with one that has no such impact, so that the economy can certainly continue to grow. That is called ‘decoupling’. Quite apart from the very valid question of whether that is even possible, one might ask why we would go to such lengths to safeguard that growth at all costs. Is it necessary for our happiness? Our well-being? World peace? Yes, it brings us ever more, but the cost is gradually becoming unbearable. Do we not need a system that helps us make do with a little less? And, in any case, one that is better distributed?

 

The world clearly needs a system that does not depend on growth. Surely, with our legendary human ingenuity, we must be able to come up with an alternative? Why is the growth narrative so persistent?

Growth, capitalism and externalisation

The last question is not so difficult to answer. Capitalism is about the accumulation of capital. What accumulates in one place must disappear elsewhere. The price you pay for the accumulation of capital is ‘externalised’. Hidden away. Swept under the carpet. Kept off the books. This happened, for example, with slave labour, the plundering of raw materials from colonies, the dumping of waste in the East Indies, leaving nuclear waste for future generations, the postponement of climate measures because initially only poor countries are affected, the sixth wave of extinction among plant and animal life on Earth, or the depletion of hundreds of thousands of years’ worth of solar energy stored in fossilised plants in the form of petroleum.

 

In other words, capitalism widens the gap between those who have everything and those who have nothing. Those who have everything also possess the economic, political and military power to enforce their privileges. To change that system, we will therefore have to take a firm stand and not allow ourselves to be fobbed off so easily.

Alternative

So, the first question then. Is there an alternative? Degrowth seems to be the most fully developed alternative at the moment. The bad news is that there is no easy solution. Under capitalism, the market decides. Whatever yields the most at the lowest cost wins the race. If you abolish that principle, on what basis do you make your choices? Under Mao’s communism, the state chooses. Under degrowth, it is the people. Direct democracy. Referendums. Go on, give it a go. How much should honey cost? In places where bees have to survive long winters, a lot more than in warmer places. How much work goes into a jar of honey, compared to a loaf of bread? Do we factor in the ecological impact? Bees are good pollinators but also competitors for their wild counterparts. And how much does the grain for your bread cost if you want to leave the fuel oil for ploughing and fertilising the fields in the ground?

Downsizing

An impossible task? Certainly in today’s vast and complex world. But nothing is stopping us from making that world a little smaller again. Instead of deciding that it is not possible for employees to run their own companies because they are too big and too complicated, we could also agree that companies should not be larger than the size that can be managed by own employees. Instead of panicking because there isn’t enough time to discuss everything, we could also embrace the slowdown. Less stress. Less pollution. More connection. Just the essentials for a while. Like during Covid, but without the social isolation. First, catch up a bit, learn to work together and consult again, learn to trust one another, work out new systems. And then, step by step, move forward again. In a direction we cannot yet imagine, but in any case an adventure that we ourselves are in control of.

Plentiful, natural alternatives

Under capitalism, shared natural resources were turned into commercial goods one by one. Natural resources such as renewable forests, hydropower, drinking water and fertile soil could, if we cared for them together and respected their limits, provide plenty for our basic needs. Now we have to work and buy in order to survive. Opting out of the system is not an option, because we are no longer able to provide for ourselves. Through trade unions, we have secured humane working conditions, but would we have been successful in this had fossil fuels not just then made their appearance? Thanks to them, employers could afford to let workers share a little of the wealth, while they themselves continued to grow. To this day, reducing or narrowing the gap has never been on the agenda.

Rewarding work

We have now gathered most of the elements of a degrowth solution. Working together on a small scale to manage natural resources in such a way that they provide us with abundance. As well as self-determination, this also gives us greater satisfaction. Under capitalism, the production process was broken down into parts in order to optimise output. Everyone plays a small part. Many workers miss the pleasure of producing something and the contact with the customer.

 

Making something because someone asks for it and values your work is more enjoyable than producing under stress and for a small profit margin a product that only sells thanks to a marketing campaign. We spend most of our lives in the workplace; why not prioritise the margin of pleasure and meaning over the margin of profit, and view economic viability in terms of that added value?

Step by step

How, according to the Degrowth movement, should we achieve this Utopia? Through a combination of actions:

 

• Bringing those utopias a step closer to reality. This is known as a ‘nowtopia’
• Growing and connecting these nowtopias through networks – Telling the new story over and over again, until people start to see it as an option or simply accept it
• (Continuing to) try through politics
• Exerting pressure via trade unions and actions
• Being ready with a cooperative Degrowth narrative (rather than an ‘us versus them’ discourse) in times of crisis
• …

Boskanter and Degrowth

We certainly have no desire to labour in vain, trying to put out a fire with a drop of water. We want to do our best to prevent further damage, but we don’t want to waste our time swimming against the tide without at least trying to help change the direction of that tide. So when volunteers here learn to gather herbs to make tea or carve wooden spoons, it is not because they will then drink less coffee or extract less metal. Hopefully, it will help them feel less dependent on the system, so that they dare to question it and take action. Hopefully, it will help them to imagine a solution and draw hope from it.