Appears in Capitalism Nature Socialism 34:2
Ecosocialists and Degrowth Advocates should be friends. Our concrete political directions are often remarkably similar. However, we have fundamental theoretical differences. The Ecosocialist says the central drive of capitalists is appropriating surplus value produced by exploited workers. The Degrowth Advocate says the central drive of capitalists is promoting unending expansion of the economic system. Despite our theoretical disagreements, we need to work together to transform the capitalist system by working to implement the many policies on which we agree, or we will all lose.
Within Marxist economics, capital accumulation is the gathering of wealth to the individual capitalist leading to the growth (or expansion) of the capitalist system itself. Salvatore Engel-Di Mauro puts it like this: “Capital accumulation … is not reducible to ‘growth’ … It is a process of appropriation and control to expand the ability to appropriate and control more [and is] not limited to … Gross Domestic Product calculations” (Citation2012, 27–28). The material wealth enabling the complex process of capital accumulation, begins with the production, appropriation, and realization of surplus value (much of which becomes profits). Surplus value is produced by workers. Merely reducing or even reversing economic growth would not change the exploitative nature of capitalist relations of production.[Footnote 1] When it comes to operationalizing this high level disagreement (exploitation versus growth as the central capitalist drive), Ecosocialists and Degrowth Advocates mostly want the same things with lots of dispute on how to get there (or even whether we can get there). Both want to: (1) end the use of fossil fuels for energy production; (2) change the fundamental social structure in favor of something (not well defined by any of us) other than capitalism; (3) obtain more equal distribution of resources and wealth; and (4) adopt some of the more innovative and collective-oriented social structures being created by Indigenous peoples all over the globe. Good policy seems to follow from both schools of thought. Consideration of both changing the relations of capitalist production and the ending of undifferentiated growth will be required to obtain the desired policy ends.
Capitalism Nature Socialism has been a close follower of the Degrowth literature. Our writers have argued for “overcoming the disasters of capitalism … by focusing on the reconstruction of peoples’ relationships with themselves, others, with the fruits of their labor, the labor process and nature … [and replacing] the conditions under which private property is established and maintained with conditions suitable to collective stewardship” (Brownhill, Turner, and Kaara 2012, 96–97) CNS contributors have not argued for generalized degrowth, “but for reducing consumption in places of over-consumption and economic growth in places that need to reach even minimum standards enjoyed by many of those in the wealthiest countries … [implementing] the cessation of all forms of colonialism and imperialism, and therefore the dismantling of the military-industrial complex worldwide” (Schwartzman and Engel-Di Mauro 2019, 48). While they acknowledge that some in the degrowth movement have moved beyond the anti-consumption elements of mainstream environmentalism, we must take care not to let the degrowth movement be used to “offer capital the environmental legitimacy it requires to resolve crises and restructure the terms of access to nature and labor” (Correia 2012, 113). More recently, in a review of one of two important new books taking a degrowth position (The Future is Degrowth: A Guide to a World Beyond Capitalism, 2022), Samuel Day Fassbinder reminds us of the need to analyze the “conflict-ridden and untidy process [of] … ‘class struggle.’” Schmuelzer et al. tell us “degrowth is in great part about overcoming class society … globally” (2022, 290). This comes at the end of their book where they tell us, “in parts of the degrowth discussion, there is a tendency to mainly focus on ecological issues and to do so from a class-blind and consumer-focused perspective that downplays social issues and fundamentally depoliticizes degrowth” (2022, 289). I completely agree, but they do not go far enough. As Fassbinder tells us, they do not take on the exploitation of workers.
Less is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World, 2020, by Jason Hickel, the other of the two books that go beyond merely arguing for ending unfettered growth, is a very well written work containing important political synthesis and policy proposals that go beyond offering capitalists environmental legitimacy for the imposition of austerity measures. There are a number of really good sections in this book that capture and combine insights many have had before (reduce inequality, stop fossil fuel production—and more, see below). However, Hickel sees the deus ex machina of capitalism as growth. He does not see the extraction of surplus value from workers as the primary motivation of capitalists with accumulation and growth following from production.
The section on the rise of capitalism along with the description of the transition from feudalism to capitalism is a concise capturing of that history. I particularly liked Hickel’s description of common persons working communally with little government structure in their developing societies from the 1300s on. The social structures common people working communally then developed were destroyed when the enclosures of communal lands were imposed. Colonialism and the slave trade also had their lasting effect on government and social structures, structures we still suffer under to this very day. This is a useful understanding of the history of growth Ecosocialists and Degrowth Advocates share as part of the development of capitalism. Joshua Freeman (2019) reminds us that the average annual growth of the global economic output between the birth of Jesus and the first factory that he dates at 1721 was essentially zero (xiv). It was not until the post World War II rise of global capitalism that economic growth accelerated. Between 1961 and 2019 average annual growth of GDP was 2.98 percent with a high of 7.24 percent in 1984 and a low of −2.6 percent in 2009 (U.S. GDP Growth Rate).
Thus, it was with the rise of industrial capitalism, and the corresponding extraction of surplus value and the accumulation that followed, that Marx’s comment, intended for another time, “Accumulate, accumulate! That is Moses and the prophets!” comes to mind (Marx 1976, 742). This is a phrase Hickel does not cite, but Schmuelzer et al. (2022, 117) do use. Marx, in his time, clearly realized the centrality of the expanded accumulation of capital, economic growth, and the concentration and centralization of political-economic power in the hands of the capitalist class. It is important to remember, however, Marx realized that the expanded social reproduction process is a consequence of the increased exploitation of labor producing ever more surplus value leading to the accumulation of capital on a larger scale.
I also see growth to be the consequence of the prime mover in capitalism: the production of profits which comes about through the global exploitation of labor. The exploitation of labor produces surplus value, which is the source of profit for capital. These profits are reinvested into expanding the accumulation of capital, which is manifest, in part, as economic growth. Hickel tells us in several places that there is a growth imperative. But the point here is capitalism cannot have growth without the production of surplus value. Hickel focuses on “aggregate growth.” However, an individual capitalist does not focus on aggregate growth at all. For sure, the capitalist operates in and has concern about the aggregate economic system in which any particular firm operates. But the capitalist’s main concern is the ever-increasing profits being produced in the particular capitalist’s firm, thereby enabling and leading to that firm’s expansion.
The capitalist drive to accumulate leads to Hickel’s understanding that capitalists abuse the environment to further their lust for expansion. Hickel summarizes well the calamitous dilemma of the impending 2°Celsius global temperature increase. Environmentalists, Ecosocialists, and Degrowth Advocates all agree the reduction of CO2 clearly requires the reduction of the burning of fossil fuels. Many of us envision a complete change in energy technology, moving from fossil fuel as the primary energy source to a variety of solar and other renewable energy technologies. For instance, hydrogen produced by solar electricity used to power the electrolysis process that splits oxygen and hydrogen in water has been suggested in these pages (Szabo 2021; Schwartzman 2022). Through the application of renewable energy technologies, the use of fossil fuel can be dramatically reduced, though not entirely eliminated (at least initially), as petroleum is used to manufacture a number of commodities (medicines included) that are not involved with energy production. And, importantly, the “alternative” energy sector will need to grow a lot to lose its “alternative” label. If the new technology is not hydrogen it will be something else such as wind and solar that needs to grow. Does this lead to GDP reduction? Not necessarily. But I do not believe GDP growth or decline is the central issue, as Hickel does.
Hickel even begins to say it himself: “it’s not growth that matters; it’s how income and resources are distributed” (2020, 28). True, but income redistribution alone will not end the ecologically destructive dynamics of capitalism, just as breaking up large firms has not moved us away from the socially destructive dynamics of monopoly capitalism. Remember, many of the offshoots of the large corporations broken up by antitrust legislation have themselves become large firms (Standard Oil of New Jersey, ATT to name two). Hickel says: “Let me emphasise that degrowth is not about reducing GDP” (2020, 30). And, much later he says: “more GDP isn’t necessary for improving human welfare at all” (2020, 168). It is worth noting that a while ago Herman E. Daly, John B. Cobb, Clifford W. Cobb (1989) analyzed the limitations of the GDP measure, a task also done well by Hickel. The critique of GDP as a measure of wellbeing remains widespread. It is a critique mainstream economists do well too. Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize economist and New York Times columnist says: “I fairly often see assertions to the effect that the U.S. economy is more successful than the economies of Western Europe, because we have higher gross domestic product per capita. Indeed we do—but a large part of that difference reflects the fact that we work longer hours, rather than higher productivity when we do work. That is, it’s not so much an indicator of superior U.S. economic prowess as it is a result of different choices” (New York Times, 2022). And please note that criticizing degrowth does not mean the contributors to CNS, who do so, are arguing for growth.
Hickel’s analysis of global inequality is quite good, although some of his reasoning seems to go against degrowth: “Instead of pursuing growth for its own sake and hoping that it will magically improve people’s lives, the goal must be to focus on improving people’s lives first and foremost—and if that requires or entails economic growth, then so be it. In other words, organize the economy around the needs of humans and ecology, rather than the other way around” (2020, 187). It is easy to agree with that. Here is a moment in the book where a discussion about changing the primary driver of the capitalist system—profits derived from the exploitation of labor (the production of surplus value)—would have been useful. But that is not Hickel’s focus.
There is another problem here. The solution to global inequality is not merely to shift resources from the Global North to the Global South. The shift of resources is surely needed, but it must take place with great caution so that the senders of resources do not impose capitalist economic structures and Western culture on the Global South and that receivers of resources not be pressured to accept inappropriate capitalist economic structures. As David Barkin argues “thousands of peoples around the world continue [to evolve] … with the changing circumstances to create institutions capable of self-governance, focusing on defending their territories, conserving and rehabilitating their natural endowments, attending to the basic needs of their members, while improving their quality of life. … They are acutely aware of the challenges of creating productive systems that are not unnecessarily destructive of their environs while developing social processes and technical approaches attuned to the possibilities of their territories” (2022, 2). Barkin further reports Indigenous peoples around the world are moving ahead without awaiting the beneficence of transfers of wealth from the North to the South and they are doing so on “the margins of the nation states in which they live … [denying] ‘capital’ space to expand its exploitation and accumulation. [They thus often avoid but not always] direct confrontations … [between] the State and … [their] individual projects” (Barkin, personal communication).
The issues Hickel raises (transition from feudalism to capitalism, global warming beyond 2°Celsius, and global inequality) are not new. Economic growth is an important manifestation but is not the central motif of the capitalist mode of production per se. Instead, the process of capital accumulation, with the continual re-investment of money into expanding the production of surplus value (through the increased exploitation of labor), is the overriding imperative of capital. While Hickel does talk about the unjust distribution of income and wealth that must be remedied, and that degrowth and social redistribution must occur at the same time, his focus on reducing GDP misses the point that society must be restructured away from the capitalist form of wage labor.
In Behemoth: A History of the Factory and the Making of the Making of the Modern World (2018), Joshua B. Freeman tells us that factories are organized in similar ways under capitalism and existing “socialism.” Focus on creating democratic structures within specific industries worldwide, including their unique production processes, will be needed. Restructuring production in the post-capitalist economy to be truly liberating will be a major, difficult undertaking. And restructuring to such an egalitarian social and productive structure may or may not result in the production and consumption of less (even though I believe it will).
To his credit, Hickel offers five sensible policy suggestions: (1) End planned obsolescence (207); (2) Cut advertising in order to reduce unnecessary modes of consumption (211); (3) Shift from private ownership of the means of production to forms of social usership (215); (4) End food waste (216); and (5) Scale down ecologically destructive industries (217). With these suggestions, Hickel only means “to illustrate that we can accomplish significant reductions in material throughput without any negative impact on human welfare” (2020, 218). Whether these are either transitional or transformative policies is up for debate. They are, however, policy suggestions I would like to see implemented. Unfortunately, Hickel offers no concrete plan for how to achieve these goals, a not uncommon problem for most of us.
Contributors to Capitalism Nature Socialism frequently pay attention to the necessity of the restructuring of capitalism and its social transformation by offering different but equally worthy policy suggestions. As stated by Daniel Faber, Benjamin Levy and Christina Schlegel (2021, 15):
The interdependency of issues [need to be] emphasized so that environmental devastation, climate change, poverty, destructive forms of resource extraction, crime, the lack of affordable housing and social services, underfunded public education, unemployment, the lack of good public transportation, dirty energy systems, and social despair are all seen as aspects of a multi-dimensional web rooted in a larger structural crisis of capitalism itself [so that] a more radical, transformative EJ movement for ecological socialism can be invented.It follows that a much more complex approach to changing capitalism is required than a focus on merely diminishing GDP. To be fair, Hickel more than once also mentions a multiplicity of issues.
Instead of mindlessly pursuing growth in every sector, whether or not we actually need it, we can decide what kinds of things we want to grow (sectors like clean energy, public healthcare, essential services, regenerative agriculture – you name it), and what sectors need to radically degrow (things like fossil fuels, private jets, arms and SUVs). (2020, 29)The important difference is each is writing in a different context: Faber, et al., want structural social change; Hickel is looking for social shrinkage, a structural change for sure, and necessary to accomplish environmental improvement, but not sufficient to transition out of capitalism. For that, the relations of production must change. Limiting growth will not accomplish that without also eliminating the exploitative production of surplus value. Thus focusing only on degrowth is too narrow. We must transform capitalism from a mode of class exploitation toward social ownership and democratic control of the means of production if we are ever to achieve the goals set forth not only by Hickel and other Degrowth Advocates, but also by Ecosocialists. With that change in the distant future, strategies and policy suggestions which identify incremental changes within the current system but which are also transformative and transitional are welcome. They are changes we can get behind.
Hickel offers us little on how to actually transform or transcend capitalism. Nor do I, except to argue that those of us working on improving the environment or housing or education, etcetera, need to keep it up in the hope that incrementalism will eventually work. That is why I used the “transitional transformative” language above. I use these terms to mean policies that begin to move capitalism to something else, not policies that will merely “save,” fix, improve or reform capitalism. It is either working for these intermediate types of policy that begin to change capitalism or work toward revolution. Here, Yanis Varoufakis (2022) offers some leadership. He chooses the third of three possible scenarios: (1) “Nothing will save humanity except revolutionary socioecological changes;” (2) “Humanity is doomed … Let’s … see how best to organize whatever life survives within the ruins;” and (3) “Here are a bunch of policies that can be implemented today, even under the existing system … ” (7). In other words, he recommends Ecosocialists and Degrowth Advocates and other progressive people follow multiple paths right now. Do the attainable, as soon as possible.
I value his recommendation as I fear a fascist takeover right now in many parts of the world more than I see the possibility of a socialist revolution. Arguing for transitional transformative progressive change should be a joint undertaking. That includes the reduction in the size of or elimination of environmentally destructive sectors as well as democratizing the relations of production. We need both. We can argue about our theoretical differences, as I have here, but Ecosocialists and Degrowth Advocates should be friends, and learn how to dance with one another. There is much we can accomplish if we work together.
Notes
[1] Putting aside for a moment the theoretical disagreement between Ecosocialists and Degrowth Advocates, in bourgeois economics, profit (not called surplus value) is an important component of economic growth. Here “growth” refers to a country’s net investment in assets: equipment, machinery, inventories, buildings, social overhead capital, financial assets and overseas assets. Profit from the bourgeois perspective is not conceived of as being produced by workers.References
Barkin, David. 2022. “Shaping a Communitarian Ethos in an Era of Ecological Crisis.” Frontiers in Sustainability. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389frsus.2022.944252/full.
Brownhill, Leigh, Terisa E. Turner, and Wahu Kaara. 2012. “Degrowth? How About Some ‘De-alienation’?” Capitalism Nature Socialism 23 (1).
Correia, David. 2012. “Degrowth, ‘American Style: No Impact Man and Bourgeois Primitivism’.” Capitalism Nature Socialism 23 (1).
Daly, Herman E., John B. Cobb, and Clifford W. Cobb. 1989. For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy Toward Community, the Environment, and a Sustainable Future. Beacon.
Engle-Di Mauro (saed), Salvatore. 2012. “Introduction to the Degrowth Symposium.” Capitalism Nature Socialism 23 (1).
Faber, Daniel, Benjamin Levy, and Christina Schlegel. 2021. “House Organ: “Not All People are Polluted Equally in Capitalist Society: An Eco-Socialist Commentary on Liberal Environmental Justice Theory’.” Capitalism Nature Socialism 32 (4): 1–16. doi:10.1080/10455752.2021.2009640
Fassbinder, Samuel Day. 2002. A review of The Future is Degrowth: A Guide to a World Beyond Capitalism, by Matthias Schmelzer, Andrea Vetter and Aaron Vansintjan. London: Verso. https://www.cnsjournal.org/a-glimpse-of-a-world-beyond/.
Freeman, Joshua. 2019. Behemoth. A History of the Factory and the Making of the Modern World. Norton.
Hickel, Jason. 2020. Less is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World.
Krugman, Paul. 2022. “How Bad is it That Americans Don’t Take Their Vacations?” New York Times, December 20.
Marx, Karl. 1976. Capital, volume 1, New Left Review, 1976 (first published 1897). https://www.surplusvalue.org.au/Marxism/Capital%20-%20Vol.%201%20Penguin.pdf.
Steve Paxton. 2023. How Capitalism Ends: History, Ideology and Progress. Zero Books.
Schwartzman, David. 2022. “A Critique of Degrowth.” Climate & Capitalism, January 5.
Schwartzman, David, and Salvatore Engel-Di Mauro. 2019. “A Response to Giorgios Kallis’ Notions of Socialism and Growth.” Capitalism Nature Socialism 30 (3): 40–51. doi:10.1080/10455752.2019.1638612
Schmuelzer, Matthias, Andrea Vetter, and Aaron Vansintjan. 2022. The Future is Degrowth: A Guide to a World Beyond Capitalism. Verso.
Szabo, John. 2021. “Natural Gas Hydrogen Nexus.” Capitalism Nature Socialism 32: 4.
U.S. GDP Growth Rate 1961-2023. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/gdp-growth-rate.
Varoufakis, Yanis. 2022. “Our Task? To Inspire the Rebellion against the Legalised Robbery of People & Earth, Even If it is Too Late.” https://metacpc.org/en/our-task-varoufakis/.