Jessamine Fraser she/her

I came across this "critique" of degrowth today in Catalyst magazine, by two prominent writers. I was struck by how wildly incorrect it is. Degrowth does *not* proceed from the position that there is "already more than enough wealth in the world"... which here seems to mean "the stuff we need to live good lives is already produced and just needs to be distributed better." Totally wrong. Everyone with any sense can see there are critical shortages of basic things like housing, sanitation systems, healthcare, public transit, etc. In reality, degrowth proceeds from the position that there is already more than enough *productive capacity*. The problem is that capital controls that productive capacity (the labour, resources, factories, etc), and therefore produces what is profitable to capital... so we get massive overproduction of SUVs, weapons, mansions, etc, with devastating ecological consequences... and we get chronic shortages of obviously necessary things because they are less profitable or not profitable at all. The solution is to reclaim democratic control over the means of production, overcome the capitalist law of value, and organize production around social and ecological goals (in other words, socialism). This must include, and indeed is enabled by, degrowing damaging and unnecessary production. With this approach, we know it is possible to ensure good lives for all 8 billion people on this planet (including supplying all the "core goods" these authors call for) with *less* total resource use and energy use, and less total output, than the world economy presently produces. This is clearly *not* just about "moving numbers around" (what a bizarre claim!). It's about transforming the ownership and direction of production.

"The good news is that these policies are highly popular and can form the basis of a winning political platform. Democratic socialism is a viable path — indeed, the only path — to a safe and just future." tribunemag.co.uk/2025/09/can…