• Poogona [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    How about we do two things

    Like how about we work less and we immediately and totally nationalize energy and agriculture haha just a thought haha (fireflies are going extinct haha)

    • captcha [any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      nationalize … agriculture

      🚨LAND REFORM ALERT🚨

      🚨LAND REFORM ALERT🚨

      🚨LAND REFORM ALERT🚨

      Do not worry, the CIA is contracting death squads to secure democracy in your country as we speak.

    • inasaba@lemmy.mlOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Way ahead of you, energy has already been nationalized here for a long time.

    • F04118F@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      This sounds nice for someone in a developed country who has all they need, and is only satisfying their wants. But for most of the world, economic development is a necessity and a lifesaver. Child mortality is reduced, life expectancy and education level increased, child labor decreased, as a country’s economy grows. This is not a fringe right-wing idea. This is the very real effect of economic growth in developing countries, i.e. most of the world.

      Degrowthers often seem to forget that applying their ideas will literally kill millions in developing countries, by preventing the economic developments that would have saved them.

      FWIW, I am not a fan of unbridled capitalism either but think that it is important to consider science in important matters like this and not just go with gut feeling. That applies to both fascism and degrowth.

      • Bartsbigbugbag@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Degrowth addresses that, contrary to your opinion. Degrowth in the global north provides the space for the global south to properly develop, something that has been systematically denied to them in many places by western powers through unequal exchange and neocolonialism.

      • yimby@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think a more fair take is that we need growth in underdeveloped places and degrowth in highly developed places. It’s less about changing the total economic output and more about changing how that output is distributed.

          • escapesamsara@discuss.online
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Which is a direct function of development. All of Africa produces less CO2 than Alabama, and Alabama is the least developed state in the developed world.

  • o_d [he/him]@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Degrowth is such a fucking stupid idea. What we need is socialism. The demonic oligarchs that run the world are never going to prioritize reducing climate change. They’ve made that clear over the last century. There’s too much profit to be made.

    Worker owned means of production is the only solution. Only then can we direct the productive forces toward solving the most immediate problems that humanity faces. We’ve created so much productivity, but we need to guide it in the direction of sustainability instead of the profit motive.

    • Chapo0114 [comrade/them, he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Degrowth could definitely only be accomplished under a socialist model where we aren’t price gouged for food and housing. A life with less work and less disposable crap sounds really fucking good though.

    • pedalmore@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re conflating two very different things. You can have an equitable system of worker owned coops that still has a growth mindset and destroys the ecosystem. You don’t magically become sustainable when socialism becomes a thing. Growth itself when we’re bound by the resources of a single planet a problem, period.

  • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This will go the same way the “Green New Deal” did. It will scare the ruling class, the ruling class will send its media minions to demonize it, and nothing will change. doomer

  • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    In order to slow the economy down and not wreak havoc, he said, we have to reconfigure our ideas about the entire economic system.

    This is how degrowthers envision the process: After a reduction in material and energy consumption, which will constrict the economy, there should also be a redistribution of existing wealth, and a transition from a materialistic society to one in which the values are based on simpler lifestyles and unpaid work and activities.

    Sounds good to me. It is a fair point that the basic operation of our society depends on continual growth, but redistribution seems like it would be an effective way of mitigating those problems degrowth might cause. We have more than enough resources to keep everyone alive, we just have to use them.

    • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’d rather just do the full communism now path, where once every man, woman and child has all their needs and many of their wants met, there isn’t a desire to chase the next fashion craze, or buy the next iphone or “keep up with the jones’” as it were because the Jones’ have the same stuff you do, but maybe they spend their ample leisure time exercising, you spend your time gardening.

      • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        The only way that will work is if you have a violent dictatorship. Welcome Stalin back basically.

        I see more future in putting laws in place that severely limits what companies can do. Companies cannot grow beyond 1000 people. Tax any wealth thing heavily. Tax negatively for the poor, tax a little for those with a little and more for those that are better off. Taxes go up and up once you are richer and Once your income and or networth reaches a certain level, tax 100%.

        Institute 3-4 work day weeks

        Institute universal income

        Out extreme limits on advertising and marketing. Those two are the real evils of mankind.

        Require news outlets be paid for by the government and be required to be neutral and factual

        With changes like that we can remain a (serverely limited) capitalist system that pays for the very nice social system below that doesn’t focus in money anymore

        • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Laws will be written with loopholes. Just nationalize industry run them for the public rather the for profit and fire the CEOs/Lobbyists and PMC’s that keep Capitalism operating.

          Also I’ll take a Stalin for the initial break from Capitalism. After 10ish years, we can go to a more democratic government.