Eco-Socialism: Should Socialists Argue for Degrowth?

Written by Stephan Kimmerle, Jess Spear and Paul Murphy and first published at Reform and Revolution

The latest IPCC report outlined again that stabilizing the climate will require rapid and dramatic  action. Emissions of greenhouse gases must peak by 2025 to have a chance of preventing global temperatures from rising more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial averages and to avoid the climate crisis from spiraling out of control. 

However, the facts that call for phasing out fossil fuels have been clear for decades — and still emissions continue to increase, not decrease. Capitalist governments lack any urgency beyond lip service about climate change. Corporations defend their profits based on fossil fuel infrastructure. The future of humanity depends on building a strong environmental movement to force the changes needed against the capitalists’ interests so we can put the planet over profits. 

How can eco-socialists contribute to this movement and what should we argue for? 

There is a debate among eco-socialists about whether we should use the term “degrowth” to describe (at least within the socialist movement) what we are fighting for. Here are two opposing viewpoints in this debate.   

Yes!

The Necessity of Eco-Socialist Degrowth

By Paul Murphy and Jess Spear

Capitalist growth is destroying our life support systems. Every single year the material taken from the Earth to feed the insatiable capitalist appetite for profits grows larger and larger and the waste spewing into the atmosphere, land, rivers, and sea grows bigger and bigger. Out of the nine planetary boundaries identified – which together delineate the “safe operating space for humanity” – four have been crossed.(1) Never has it been more clear that we face a choice between socialism and barbarism.

However, what socialists mean by “socialism” is not settled. It ranges from the “ecomodernists” and “fully automated luxury”(2) communists, who place an emphasis on technological solutions to the climate emergency, to the eco-socialists and “eco-socialist degrowthers”(3) focused on urgently reducing emissions and ecosystem destruction. 

We want to make the case for eco-socialist degrowth, which is “a planned downscaling of energy and resource use to bring the economy back into balance with the living world in a safe, just and equitable way.”(4) As a guiding concept for the revolutionary left today, eco-socialist degrowth can help illuminate the ecologically-sustainable path forward. 

But don’t we need both degrowth and growth?

Yes. We need degrowth in industries ranging from armaments and advertising to fast fashion and fossil fuels, together with a dramatic reduction in consumption of the richest 1% who are responsible for 15% of emissions.(5)  We need growth in public services like healthcare, education, public transit, renewable energy, childcare, etc. (the list could go on), particularly in developing countries. 

In our view, though, this question is a red herring. It sidesteps the bigger question degrowth is seeking to address: does humanity need to reduce energy consumption and material throughput overall? 

We answer unambiguously – yes. 

Of course, that is not enough. The blame for climate change and environmental destruction is all too often placed on the shoulders of “humanity” as a whole, whether you’re a private jet-owning billionaire or a Ugandan subsistence farmer. This framing repels working-class people who, even in the wealthiest countries, struggle to secure even the basic necessities. So, as socialists we must go further and highlight all the wasteful production capitalism depends on, from which we don’t benefit (e.g. advertisement), and the class divide in consumption, within rich countries, but also between the global North and global South.(6) 

We have to immediately add that degrowth can and must be done in a way that improves the quality of life for almost everybody on the planet, but only on the basis of a rational and democratic plan of production. 

Won’t this turn off working-class people?

As a slogan, we agree that “degrowth” is too abstract, and it jars too sharply with the ‘common sense’ ideology of growth. We’re not advocating you show up with giant “DEGROWTH” banners at the next rally. 

As a concept, however, degrowth refocuses our attention on the growth imperative inherent to capitalism and its ever expanding energy requirements. It challenges us to reconsider how to build a powerful socialist movement on a solid ecological footing. 

An imprecise parallel would be Lenin’s concept of “smashing the state.” In State & Revolution, Lenin drew the conclusion, in line with what Marx already wrote in the wake of the Paris Commune of 1871, that the working class “cannot take possession of the capitalist state apparatus and put it to work at their service.”(7) They must smash it and build a radically different one that serves their interests.

“Smash the state” was not and is not a slogan to mobilize large numbers of working-class people. But it assists socialists in developing demands and slogans that point in the right direction and which have the potential to reach, and in certain circumstances, mobilize masses. For example, that essential concept informed the popular Bolshevik slogan “all power to the Soviets.”

It might be challenging to win car factory workers to degrow their industry, but we have to start from the needs of the working class as a whole. We cannot base ourselves on replacing combustion engine cars with electric cars. We must make the case for converting private car factories into producing public transport infrastructure, and for a democratic and just transition. The same is true for a whole suite of industries. Workers in armaments, fossil fuels, big agribusiness, air travel, etc. will understandably resist the loss of their existing jobs. Instead of just echoing that, we have to struggle within the trade union movement for a programme which challenges the hegemonic ideology of growth and outlines how these industries can be converted to socially useful production, with guaranteed jobs and improved conditions for all workers.(8) 

No more sacrifice zones

Degrowth also forces us to seriously consider the existing plans to replace fossil fuels with clean energy technology. Where will you get the material necessary to build all those solar panels, wind turbines, electric buses, trains, and batteries? What communities will be displaced and harmed by unearthing those minerals? How much do we need to ensure everyone has a good living standard? Socialists in the global North have a responsibility to raise awareness of the ecological crises, including not only the existence of technological solutions that the ruling elite have refused to deploy, but also the impact of such solutions on other peoples. 

The way out is not increased mining in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Chile, and South Africa to build solar panels and wind turbines for cities in the global North, destroying local environments and communities. The bridge we build from here to an eco-socialist future cannot be built by stepping on the backs of workers, women, and peasants in the global South. Therefore, we must make the case for ramping up renewable energy production while simultaneously reducing overall energy needs, starting with the luxury consumption of the 1% and unnecessary production (ie, planned obsolescence). 

What does it mean for us?

Utilizing the concept of degrowth means breaking free from the ideology of growth which has wrapped its tentacles around not only the reformists, but also the revolutionaries. 

Instead of advocating for ‘sustainable’ growth, we should describe our aim as delivering a good life for every person on the planet. As part of that, we should reject the aim of a superabundance of material private goods. On a finite planet, there cannot be infinite goods. Instead, socialists should advocate the provision of high-quality public goods, the decommodification of the commons and all aspects of life, and the healing of the rift between humanity and nature.

Adopting degrowth as a concept means emphasizing slogans, demands, and potential struggles which help to mobilize working-class and oppressed people in a struggle against capital’s destruction of life, but which point towards a better life. 

Some demands to raise include:

• A four-day or 30-hour week without loss of pay, which would result in a significant decrease in energy consumption and give workers more leisure time.
• Mass retrofitting of people’s homes, slashing energy consumption while cutting bills for families and creating millions of green jobs.
• An expansion of ‘care jobs’ – in childcare, education, and healthcare. These are high impact jobs in terms of quality of life for all, while adding very few carbon emissions.
• Free, green, and frequent public transit so that people can move away from individual cars.
• Break the cycle of consumption and waste of consumer goods by banning advertisement, implementing mandatory extended warranties, outlawing planned obsolescence, and introducing a ‘right to repair,’ ensuring that they are repairable at low cost.

These positive demands need to be combined with negative demands to eliminate the emissions of the capitalist class and the personal luxury consumption of the rich. For example, in Ireland we in People Before Profit put forward a bill to ban the future development of data centers and fossil fuel infrastructure. These data centers are projected to use nearly 30% of our electricity by 2028.(9) By and large, they are not performing useful work from the point of view of the majority. Instead, they are running algorithms to target people with advertising (which we all hate!)

Fossil fuels should be expropriated from the oil companies and left in the ground. The armaments industry and the military industrial complex must be put out of business. Private jets should be banned, as should the production of SUVs, which should be banned from cities immediately. 

In addition, our demands for progressive taxation on the rich have a vital position in a programme inspired by degrowth. Taking wealth out of the hands of the energy and resource wasting ultra-rich and investing in public services is the simplest way to reduce carbon emissions. 

The crowning demands of an eco-socialist programme informed by degrowth has to be the nationalization and democratic public ownership of the key sections of the economy in order to allow a rapid and just reduction in energy usage and shift to renewable energy. Only on the basis of a globally planned system will it be possible to rationally reduce the overall envelope of energy and material usage, while ensuring big leaps forward in the quality of life for everyone.  

This article is a shortened and edited version of a much longer piece which appeared in Rupture (the eco-socialist quarterly) Issue 7. It’s available online at www.rupture.ie

Jess Spear is National Organizer for RISE, a revolutionary Marxist network of the Irish eco-socialist party People Before Profit. Paul Murphy is a TD (Member of Parliament) in Ireland for the eco-socialist party People Before Profit and a member of the revolutionary socialist network, RISE.

No!

For a Socialist Green New Deal

By Stephan Kimmerle

The climate catastrophe, pollution of the oceans, microplastics in animal and human bodies, the threat of pandemics, and many more large and small disasters threaten human existence. The environmental movement feels the urgency to act but has many different political trends within it. It’s essential that we work together and unite wherever possible. However, the different strategies, demands, and proposals deserve an open, democratic debate in solidarity and respect for each other. Reform & Revolution sees itself as part of the eco-socialist movement. The degrowth movement, coming from a tradition from the 1960s and especially in the early 2000s, is a different trend. In my view, it’s better not to confuse the two trends; we should respect our differences in order to fully clarify the best way forward for the movement.

So, what is eco-socialism, and what is the idea of the degrowth movement? What do we have in common, and what are the differences?

The Two Inseparable Parts of Eco-Socialism

The Green New Deal summarizes many of the aspirations of left-wing environmental activists. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey might not have had abolishing capitalism in mind; however, the Green New Deal they presented included:

•     A carbon neutral economy in ten years
•     Medicare for All
•     Food security for all
•     Affordable housing for all
•     Guaranteed jobs for all — a just transition for workers in polluting industries
•     Expanding workers and union rights
•     A focus on marginalized communities within a just transition

Mass struggles for such a program will win reforms.  This will buy us time (but not much) to achieve our overarching goal. Such struggles will also expose the limits of what capitalism can offer and create opportunities to win people over to a program for socialism. People engaged in struggle will see very clearly that it’s much easier to achieve all these reforms by abolishing capitalism than trying to implement them within the framework of capitalism. This is the task of eco-socialists — mobilize working-class people into these struggles and link them to the need to abolish capitalism.

Eco-socialism is a political trend within the environmental movement with two major features:

a) Within the socialist movement, eco-socialism is unique in emphasizing the environmental crisis within the fight against capitalism.

b) Within the environmental movement, eco-socialism is unique in emphasizing the power of the working class and the need for a socialist transformation of society . Mobilizing the working class to take power to save the planet for human existence is key for eco-socialists. The key force for change, the source of power to fundamentally change the way production and consumption is organized, is the global, multiracial working class.

An eco-socialist program of a Green New Deal — linked to taking the top 500 corporations under democratic, public ownership and developing a plan to reorganize society and production — has, in our view, a fighting chance to inspire working-class people to take the necessary action to solve the environmental crisis.

We can win over the working class to fight for a sustainable future, even if workers are currently working in polluting industries, because we can make the case that we actually need them, their skills and their contributions to change society. Car factory workers know that their jobs are not secure. The question is whether we offer to fight alongside them for a future where they will still have highly skilled jobs, where union rights will be defended and expanded, where living wages will be guaranteed. We do not want to drive them into the arms of their bosses and managers where they continue working in the destructive industries that capitalism created.

A Socialist Transition under the Lens of Degrowth

The first thing that workers will understand if you talk about growth and degrowth is whether the economy is expanding or contracting.  This is often measured by the GDP, a monetary expression of all goods and services produced in a specific time period.

Measuring the GDP is a tool that capitalists like. The endless need to accumulate capital, AKA growth, is built into the current mode of production, capitalism.

However, I believe that the GDP is scientifically useless to describe the change we need to put people over profit and defend the ability for humans to live on this planet. This becomes apparent, when we ask: Will a program like the Green New Deal, linked to a socialist transformation of society, lead to growth or to degrowth? In a transition to a society based on economic, gender, and racial justice internationally, there is a need for a massive investment program: reforestation, dismantling nuclear power plants as safely as possible, building affordable green housing, massively expanding public transit and reducing transit needs through redesigning how we work and live in cities, expanding  healthcare, providing clean water (think of cities like Flint, Michigan) and healthy sewage systems, massively improving education, nursing, and elderly care, retooling and reorganizing production, etc. Why would we call this “degrowth”?

An eco-socialist transformation of society will also need to center marginalized communities and peoples oppressed by racism and nationalism for centuries. This requires mobilizing resources to overcome these historic injustices. Such a transformation will also reorganize social reproduction (care for children, the sick, and the elderly, the material and psychological reproduction of the workforce) which is currently based on gender inequality. Basically, we need to radically reconfigure how humans live on this planet. Calling for degrowth does not help us explain the massive expansion of resources that will be required to uproot the legacies of racism and patriarchy.

On the other hand, we need dramatically less military spending, advertising, individualized transportation, and production of cheap goods that are designed to break in order to sell more stuff. We can reduce a lot of this waste immediately.

On balance, it still looks like a socialist society will increase the factors with which economic activity is measured, the GDP. However, growth or degrowth of the GDP tells us nothing about the changes we are fighting for.

For this reason, instead of using GDP, some in the degrowth movement want to use the material “throughput” to measure growth and degrowth. “Throughput refers to the materials and energy a society extracts, processes, transports and distributes, to consume and return back to the environment as waste,” writes Giorgos Kallis, one of the principal advocates of degrowth. Following this advice — will a Green New Deal reduce the material throughput, energy consumption, and use of raw materials? Most likely not immediately, but definitely and significantly in the medium term. However, the “throughput” is not a great way to measure the environmental movement’s success either. It does not tell us if “throughput” was used to build long lasting, affordable green housing (which is needed around the globe) or to build another highway. In addition, “throughput” is not what people understand when socialists talk about “growth” or “degrowth.”

Socialists need to talk about quality, not quantity. A socialist Green New Deal will dramatically improve the living standards of the overwhelming majority in the Global South and in the advanced capitalist countries. The socialist Green New Deal is not a program to reduce global production measured in money or in a quantity of “throughput.” It’s a program for a democratic, eco-socialist transformation of society, a program for a completely different way of producing and consuming goods and services.

Some acknowledge that degrowth is not a good slogan to use in public. But they maintain that it is a useful term to use internally among fellow socialists. Does this term help clarify what we are fighting for? If you can freely choose what words you want to use, why would you use “degrowth” to describe a qualitative rather than a quantitative change? In reality, some socialists try to use the word degrowth because it has a certain amount of support and a certain meaning among environmental activists. However, the meaning of that word – especially if you want to use it in a scientific context – is then coined by those who use it in a certain field of science and activism.

Degrowth in the Eyes of the Degrowth Movement

The degrowth movement centers on the reduction of either production and consumption in general or at least the reduction of “throughput” — defined as the mass of energy and material used in the economy — in order to achieve a sustainable way of human life.

The movement for degrowth has its roots in the student movements of the 1960s. Even then, far-sighted eco-socialists like André Gorz were more influenced by  anti-consumerism (a critique of the artificial needs created by capitalism and commodity fetishism) and arguments for a simpler life than on mobilizing the working class.

Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen heavily influenced the degrowth movement that formed in France and Italy in the early 2000s . He argued that there is a finite limit of resources on the planet and every use of material resources downgrades them. From that perspective he argued that endless growth is impossible. Given the ongoing lack of resources, Georgescu-Roegen was convinced that social conflict would develop under any human system, whether it was capitalist or socialist.

That is why at least a significant part of the degrowth movement is deeply pessimistic about the possibility of a future without capitalism, oppression, and exploitation. When the degrowth movement refers to the growth-driven capitalist society, the alternative is not a socialist transformation based on environmentally sustainable struggles of the working class, but either a voluntary individual reduction or a state regulated decrease measured in quantitative throughput.

There is obviously some overlap of the ideas of the political trend of the degrowth movement and the vast majority of the environmental movement. Most trends within the environmental movement acknowledge the need to reduce energy production and consumption and to end the predatory use of raw materials including the brutal working conditions of extraction of those materials out of the environment.

However, the response to a capitalist society based on the need for endless growth of capital, is a) in the eyes of the degrowth movement to abolish growth and b) in the eyes of the eco-socialist movement to abolish capital.  

Michael Löwy, a French-Brazilian Marxist professor and activist, writes carefully: “What could be the relations between eco-socialists and the degrowth movement? In spite of the disagreements, can there be an active alliance around common objectives?” Löwy wants to “achieve, without hiding the inevitable disagreements, a ‘political composition’ of all those who have understood that the survival of life on the planet and of humanity in particular are contradictory to capitalism and productivism, and therefore look for the way out of this destructive and inhumane system.”

I agree. Let’s work together, but let’s not hide our differences.

Endnotes

(1) These are climate change, biodiversity loss, nitrogen removed from the atmosphere, and chemical pollution (see The Tipping Point in the latest issue of Rupture).

(2) Aaron Bastani, Fully Automated Luxury Communism (Verso Books, 2018).

(3) Michael Löwy, Benji Akbulut, Sabrina Fernandes, and Giorgos Kallis, ‘For an Ecosocialist Degrowth’, Globalecosocialistnetwork.net, April 8, 2022.

(4) Jason Hickel, Less Is More: How Degrowth Will Save The World (Random House, 2020) p. 29.

(5) Oxfam, ‘Confronting Carbon Inequality’ (September 2020)

(6) “Global North” is the “IMF’s ‘advanced economies’ grouping (as of 2015), which includes the USA, Canada, Western and Northern Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Israel and Japan, plus South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong, and a number of small island territories” from Jason Hickel et al., ‘Imperialist appropriation in the world economy: Drain from the global South through unequal exchange, 1990–2015’, Global Environmental Change, Volume 73, March 2022.

(7) Lenin, ‘The State and Revolution’ (1917) quoting Marx’s 1872 preface to The Communist Manifesto.

(8) The Lucas Plan developed by workers at Lucas Aerospace in Britain 1976 gives a glimpse of how this could be done.

(9) Eirgrid Report, ‘All-Island Generation Capacity Statement 2019-2028’

Stephan Kimmerle is a Seattle DSA activist and a Co-convener of its District 2 group. He's been involved in the labor and socialist movement internationally—from being a shop steward in the public sector in Germany to organizing Marxists on an international level. He is working part-time jobs while being a stay-at-home dad of two wonderful children.