Let’s put some life into this sub. I don’t think degrowth is possible under capitalism because the imperative to degrow contradicts the capitalist drive for the creation of value (valorization) which must always grow under capitalism’

  • MrMakabar@slrpnk.netM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    In other words "socialism " can not exist in the real world as not everybody can be treated fairly and everything else is “capitalism”. That is a very conveniant definition of “socialism” to just be able to deflect of every failure of a system by claiming it was not socialist in the first place. At the same time it is obviously daming “socalism” to academia as no real world experince can be gained, as with even a bit of “capitalism” these real world experiments would not be “socailist”.

    Anyway talking about the only economic system in the real world “capitalism”. It can absolutly do degrowth according to your definition. The problem with degrwoth is the definition of value and the deeply “capitalist” coops and somewhat democratic governments, as well as foundations have shown to be able to define that differently. Anyway I know why avoid “socialism”

    • Mambabasa@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Just because socialism has failed doesn’t mean it is impossible or not worth doing. Much of degrowth will necessarily be socialist in content and tendency. Don’t misunderstand me, I am for degrowth and for socialism and I believe these things are worth doing and are possible. We will fight for degrowth, but degrowth cannot and will not be won under the current mode of production. A revolutionary rupture will be needed and this is what degrowth will have to work towards.

      • MrMakabar@slrpnk.netM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I believe it is extremly important why socialism has failed until now. The key part of this is imho the structure of the Communist parties, which tried to push these systems throu. By being to down hierachical systems striving for power, they were and are easy to corrupt by power hungry individuals, which turns them into full blown dictatroships after they have won the revolution.

        That is also true for a lot of democratic revolutions of dictators. They overthrow them, but lack the social system in the back to support a proper democracy. So you end up with a coup after the first problems of the new government.

        To me the logical solution is to set up alternative systems of the kind I want to see, within the current system. This gives two big advantgaes. First of all it is able to test the ideas. If it fails to work with people, who actually activly want to be part of it, it is extremly likely to not work with millions of people after a revolution. Secondly it creates an organization, which can be used as a blue print after the revolution by either being scaled up or copied. There are a lot of systems or parts of systems, which are actually working pretty well today. We do have a lot of really well working prefiguration, which can be used to show people how things work.

        Basicly I do not care about a system being pure socialism or capitalism or whatever. I have no problem with mixing parts of different politcal philosophies together to create a better working system. In fact I believe it is neceassary as the world has different regions and cultures requiring and pushing for different solutions for local problems. Obviously learning from each other is a good idea. So I do not have a problem with just replacing parts of the current system more slowly or taking smaller victories. We have a lot of solutions to lower growth to push for other values then money. Things like workers protection, unions, enviromental laws, carbon taxes and so forth all will slow down growth. If enough of them are brought together they will even shrink the economy. That might end up with a system very much like socialism and parts of it are going to need revolutions or at least violence against the current system to be brought throu.

        In other words I do not believe the world is black and white, but grey. What I want is a better world and I will take it, even if it is not perfect.

        • Mambabasa@slrpnk.netOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Socialism isn’t about creating a purist socialist system, but by creating an entirely new way of doing life outside the bounds of classes, the state, money, etc. It seems that you’re arguing for prefiguritve politics, in building the new world in the shell of the old. This is admirable and prefigurative politics will always have its place in the socialist tradition with prominent projects like the Zapatistas and Rojava as prefiguring socialism. But we cannot mystify or veil projects as “socialism.” Yes they are socialist in tendency and are building toward socialism, but while capitalism exists, its logic encapsulates everything. A new mode of production can emerge from prefigurative seeds. Capitalism itself emerged from and was prefigured by early commodity systems in the ancient and medieval world. It’s quite possible that socialism itself can emerge and be prefigured by seeds today like with mutual aid, but we cannot confuse these seeds as the socialist mode of production itself.

      • bouh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Wars and crisis are degrowth that happens constantly and they are definitely not socialists. Unless sharing the loss and pain is the socialist part I guess?

        • Mambabasa@slrpnk.netOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Degrowth isn’t the same as a shrinking of economy due to war and crisis. It is the intentional slowdown of the economy towards very specific ends: less work, less consumption, more welfare, etc.

          • bouh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s not degrowth then. That’s the repurpose of the economy. Definanciarisation would be a better term IMO. Or people oriented economy.

            As I said, growth is an illusion for people to believe the system will benefit the poor as well as the rich. If they believe it, they can’t wish for degrowth, because they understand very well who will suffer from the decrease of growth.

            • Mambabasa@slrpnk.netOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Of course that’s degrowth. That’s the accepted definition among degrowthers. Degrowth is about benefiting the poor as well. Stop talking out of your asshole.