Degrowth: A response
by John Molyneux
In our last issue, Rupture published a piece from Paul Murphy and Jess Spear entitled ‘The Necessity of Ecosocialist Degrowth’, which argued for the use of ecosocialist de- growth in order to counter the climate and biodiversity crises. In line with Rupture's commitment to comradely discussion and debate, we are happy to feature the following piece by John Molyneux, arguing against the use of degrowth by the Marxist left.
Rupture intends for both articles to form part of an ongoing discussion and welcomes further contributions on this subject.
In the face of capitalism’s headlong career towards climate catastrophe, driven by its inbuilt relentless compulsion to accumulate capital and grow, it is not surprising that some on the left are trying to write a minus sign where the bourgeoisie writes a plus and are calling for a policy of ‘degrowth’. Nevertheless I believe it is a mistake, a serious mistake.
The Proletariat as subject of social change
“Just as the economists”, wrote Marx in The Poverty of Philosophy, “are the scientific representatives of the bourgeois class, so the Socialists and Communists are the theoreticians of the proletarian class.” “Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of liberation of the proletariat?’[1] wrote Engels in The Principles of Communism. And Communists ’have no interests separate and apart from the proletariat as a whole’, they both wrote in The Communist Manifesto. The position of advocating degrowth is a step away from that class foundation of our politics and a step towards middle class environmentalism which tends to see the working class as the object not the subject of social change.
Article originally published in Issue 8 of Rupture, Ireland’s eco-socialist quarterly, buy the print issue:
It is clear that it will not be possible seriously to engage the working class either in the workplace or in the community on the basis of degrowth. To say this is not to make a concession to backward working class prejudices, as would be the case with a concession on racism, sexism or homophobia, or to retreat in fear of ‘putting people off’ (though it would certainly do that). The working class will recoil from degrowth because it really is against their interests. Degrowth under capitalism is a disaster for working class people. It means, in reality, a recession with all the unemployment and suffering that involves. This ‘difficulty’ cannot be evaded by saying what we want is ‘democratically planned degrowth’ or some such. Planned degrowth under capitalism, with the capitalist class still in power, is impossible. And even small steps towards degrowth will hit working class people, however we dress it up.
What makes this so dangerous politically is not only the suffering we would be held responsible for but the fact that there simply is no other social force that can seriously challenge and defeat capitalism or establish socialism. Michael Lowy, Bengiak Bulut, Sabrina Fernandes and Giorgos Kallis in ‘For Ecosocialist Degrowth’ respond to this problem by revising the Marxist definition of the working class.
‘Ecosocialist degrowth can only win through a confrontation with the fossil oligarchy and the ruling classes who control political and economic power. Who is the subject of this struggle? We cannot overcome the system without the active participation of the urban and rural working class, who make up the majority of the population and are already bearing the brunt of capitalism’s social and ecological ills. But we also have to expand the definition of the working class to include those who undertake social and ecological reproduction, the forces who are now at the forefront of social-ecological mobilizations: youth, women, Indigenous peoples, and peasants’[2]
This tends to reduce the ‘urban and rural working class’ to just one component of the movement and is also theoretically a hopeless mishmash. The definition of working class, it says, must be expanded to include ‘youth and women’. But there are ruling class youth, middle class youth and working class youth; there are ruling class women, middle class women and working class women. They cannot simply be ‘included’ in the working class by changing the definition; they have fundamentally different interests. Large numbers of indigenous peoples who no longer live in forests, the bush or deserts as hunters and gatherers, have moved to towns and cities and have become part of the working class. This is extremely important. But there are also indigenous people who are not working class. Peasants, who are small landowners, are NOT working class.[3] (Just to avoid misunderstanding, not including people in the category of working class does NOT, and never has, meant excluding them from the struggle or the movement and, of course, the working class needs an alliance with peasants, indigenous people and all the oppressed). Now I realise this is Michael Lowy et al’s formulation not Spear and Murphy’s, and I trust they would reject it, but Lowy et al get to this position as they search for a ‘subject’ for the struggle for ecosocialist degrowth.
““It will not be possible seriously to engage the working class either in the workplace or in the community on the basis of degrowth.””
Degrowth’s lack of appeal
Spear and Murphy try to get round the problem of degrowth repelling working class people in two ways; neither is satisfactory or convincing. On the one hand they quote Jason Hickel to the effect that degrowth can be popular:
‘In addition, the proposition that degrowth is a “non-starter” for working class people is not supported by recent polls. In Less is More, Hickel explains that “…when people have to choose between environmental protection and growth, ‘environmental protection is prioritised in most surveys and countries’.” In the EU between 55-70% responded positively to the question, “Do you believe that the environment should be made a priority even if doing so damages economic growth?” Even in the belly of the beast, the United States, 70% “agree with the statement that ‘environmental protection is more important than growth”.’[4]
But this is highly misleading. Often people answer opinion poll questions according to what they think they ‘ought’ to say and this question is abstract and about abstract priorities. ‘Damaging‘ economic growth was likely ‘heard’ as reducing growth (say from 4-2%) not ‘degrowth’. I do not believe for one moment that this would be the reaction of working class people if the degrowth was proposed concretely in terms of their jobs and their communities.
On the other hand they accept that degrowth cannot be a basis for mobilisation but claim that it is a ‘guiding concept’ not a slogan, using the example of Lenin’s concept of ‘smashing the state’ and the popular mobilising slogan of ‘All Power to the Soviets’. But neither the idea nor the example work. The relation between theoretical concepts and mobilising slogans has to be one of dialectical interaction. Gramsci puts it excellently in The Prison Notebooks
‘Can modern theory [marxism] be in opposition to the ‘spontaneous’ feelings of the masses? (‘Spontaneous’ in the sense that they are not the result of any systematic educational activity on the part of an already conscious leading group, but have been formed through everyday experience illuminated by ‘common sense’ i.e. by the traditional popular conception of the world)
It cannot be in opposition to them. Between the two there is a ‘quantitative’ difference of degree not one of quality. A reciprocal ‘reduction’ so to speak, a passage from one to the other and vice versa, must be possible.’
Such interaction is not possible in the case of ‘degrowth’ because under capitalism degrowth is against the interests of the working class. (I will deal with the question of degrowth in the transition to and under socialism shortly). A demand such as for free regular and expanded public transport is not at all part of a concrete application of degrowth. It implies an expansion of jobs and production in that sector – more buses, more trains, more bus drivers and train drivers etc. – and will be understood as such by workers. The demand for a transition to renewable energy must be advanced as a demand for more ‘climate’ jobs, making wind turbines, solar panels etc. Hence the vital importance of the concept of just transition.
““The relation between theoretical concepts and mobilising slogans has to be one of dialectical interaction.””
Nor will it be possible to maintain a Chinese Wall between the concept and popular agitation, with degrowth remaining safely in the background. This was noted by a contributor from the floor to the recent public meeting on degrowth organised by RISE when he pointed out they had just put up posters all over Dublin City Centre advocating degrowth. And even if we ecosocialists didn’t advertise it much ourselves, it is certain our opponents would foreground it, especially in electoral campaigns. Actually Spear and Murphy seem to recognise this themselves. They write:
“So the necessary contraction in energy usage and material throughput, certainly within the framework of capitalism, would result in a decrease in GDP at a global level. That, for us, is a consequence, rather than the aim. But for the purpose of the argument it is important to be upfront about it.” [My emphases.]
So they are advocating degrowth under capitalism, which would mean, I repeat, a recession, and they plan to be upfront about it. But perhaps this is a slip of the pen and what is really being advocated is either degrowth as a transitional demand or as a policy in transition to socialism or as necessary in a fully fledged socialist society.
Degrowth in the transition to socialism
Spear and Murphy come from a tradition that puts a lot of emphasis on ‘transitional demands’ but let’s be clear: as a transitional demand degrowth fails at the first hurdle. Transitional demands, as Trotsky explained, must ‘stem from today’s conditions and today’s consciousness of wide layers of the working class ‘and lead ‘to one final conclusion: the conquest of power by the proletariat’. But degrowth, precisely, does not stem from ‘today’s consciousness of wide sections of the working class’.
Nor can degrowth be part of the programme of an incoming revolutionary government in a new workers’ state. The first priority of such a government and state – assuming ,as is likely, that the revolution has occurred first in a single country – will be to survive counterrevolutionary attempts to crush and isolate it, while helping spread the revolution to other countries. Anyone with a realistic idea of what such a situation will be like will understand that the revolutionary government will most likely be forced to take emergency measures to prevent the breakdown of the economy due to capital flight and sabotage by the deposed capitalist class, sanctions and boycotts by international capitalism and even outright military intervention. Planned degrowth will no more be on the cards than the instant abolition of wage labour or immediate disarmament.
However, let us assume – oh! Bliss – that all the problems are overcome, the revolution spreads and we arrive at a firmly established international socialism on the way to the complete elimination of classes and full communism. What of degrowth then?
In a socialist society based on production for need not profit degrowth in the sense of a reduction in GDP would be not so much wrong as utterly meaningless. GDP is not a measure of the amount of things produced or energy used. It is a completely capitalist measure of the value/price of goods and services produced. In so far as a transition to socialism is achieved, GDP will simply cease to apply. Because they understand this Spear and Murphy use the more ‘objective’ sounding terms ‘energy consumption’ and ‘material throughput’.
“In our view, though, this response sidesteps the bigger question degrowth is seeking to address: does humanity need to reduce energy consumption and material throughput overall?
We answer unambiguously – yes.”
And they write of ‘the scientific necessity of a significant reduction in energy consumption and material throughput on a global scale’.
““In so far as a transition to socialism is achieved, GDP will sim- ply cease to apply.””
This is very much the lynchpin of Spear and Murphy’s argument and given its centrality it is, to say the least, surprising that they offer no definition, or even explanation, of these two key terms. It is as if they think they are self explanatory. They are not. Let’s begin with energy consumption. What does this refer to? In scientific terms all life, animal and human, involves the expenditure of energy. Walking, running, cycling and swimming – all beneficial activities – all use energy. Why, in the foreseeable future, do we need to reduce the amount of energy we use? We know why we need to reduce the burning of fossil fuels – they emit greenhouse gases and will also, in the not too distant future, run out. But why do we need to reduce our use of wind power, solar power, tidal power as such? None of these are going to run out and they are not damaging to the environment.
And what of ‘material throughput’? According to Google:
“Throughput is the quantity or amount of raw material processed within a given time. In other words, throughput is the rate of production for a process over a specific amount of time.”
The term is imported from capitalist industry (it doesn’t seem to have a history in the Marxist tradition) but again it raises the question: why do we need to reduce the amount of raw material (any material, all material?) processed in a given time? Spear and Murphy claim it is a scientific necessity but quote no scientific evidence on this at all. There most certainly is not the scientific consensus on this question that there is on the matter of Co2 emissions and climate change.
Are Spear and Murphy arguing that all human activity and production is intrinsically damaging to the planet (in what way?) or threatening to the future of humanity? I assume not but in that case why call for general degrowth? Why not call for the reduction or elimination of damaging activities and processes (use of fossil-fuels, arms manufacture, chemical pollution etc.) and the expansion and development of beneficial activities and production (hospital and school building, ambulance construction, public transport infrastructure and so on)? But that is where ecosocialists are at already and where socialists have also been at for a long time and is entirely compatible with making a case that can gain a hearing from working class people.
The productive forces
There are two further issues which are not mentioned by Spear and Murphy but which I think need to be brought up in this context. The first is the question of the productive forces. This is the closest term in Marxism to ‘material throughput’ but it is wider and better and is also a cornerstone of historical materialism. Ever since The German Ideology in 1845 Marx argued (followed by Engels, Lenin, Trotsky and many other lesser figures) that the development of the productive forces was the fundamental driving force of human history. Under capitalism this development was both distorted and fettered but it remained the ultimate foundation of all human progress and the premise for the achievement of communism.
‘[T]his development of productive forces is an absolutely necessary practical premise because without it want is merely made general, and with destitution the struggle for necessities and all the old filthy business would necessarily be reproduced’
And in The Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels write:
“The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.” [My emphasis.][4]
To stress again this development of the productive forces does not mean a blind increase in the amount of ‘stuff’ that is produced; it means an increase in the capacity of humans consciously and rationally to shape nature to meet their needs, and sustainability would be a key human need. The increase in the productive forces would also be a means, as Marx made clear, of reducing the working week.[5]
As I said, Spear and Murphy do not discuss this but talking of the necessity of degrowth under socialism clearly verges on abandoning this key Marxist idea. Obviously the revision of key Marxist ideas cannot be ruled out in principle but it does have consequences: in this case the consequence is the need for a whole new theory of history.
The second, even more worrying, issue that raises its head here is the whole question of ‘overpopulation’. If it is argued that a general reduction in production (‘energy consumption’ and material ‘throughput’) is a necessity under both capitalism and socialism then a logical next step is to talk about the need to control population – with all the dangers that involves. Spear and Murphy can rightly respond that they have not mentioned this and have no intention of going there. But it is a significant strand in the environmental movement and has been taken up in varying degrees by some ecosocialist degrowthers (with a light touch by Giorgios Kallis[6] and Jason Hickel[7] and full on by Alan Thornett[8]).
No return to utopian socialism
Before Marx the dominant trend in socialism were the Utopian Socialists such as St. Simon, Fourier and Owen. As Marx and Engels recognised they had many excellent critical insights regarding capitalism, but their strategy for social change was to draw up plans for the future society showing how rationally superior it would be to the present order in the hope that they could convince the powers-that-be to inaugurate system change. Marx and Engels broke decisively with the Utopians insisting that this was a vain hope and that socialism had to be a movement of the working class, the only social force that could actually overcome capitalism.
Contemporary environmentalism is full of utopians – people who believe their task is to persuade the global political leaders and ruling class to turn from their ecocidal ways and adopt sound ecological solutions which they spare no effort dreaming up and refining. Moreover, these latter-day utopians include in their ranks many who consider themselves ecosocialists and whose proposals differ in that they are more radical and require a break with capitalism for their implementation, but still with little or no idea how to connect these ideas to the actual class struggle and even less effort to build such a connection in practice.
Spear and Murphy are not at all utopian socialists, nevertheless degrowth is a small step in that direction in that, as I stressed at the start of this article, it is a ‘plan’ for how society can/should be organised which immediately separates its advocates from the only social force capable of implementing any kind of overthrow of capitalism or any kind of post-capitalist plan. This is not a good road to go down.
Notes
[1] See Friedrich Engels, The Principles of Communism (Germany, 1847)
[2] Michael Löwy, ‘For An Ecosocialist Degrowth’, Global Ecosocialist Network, 8th April 2022,
[3] I don’t like arguing from authority but the fact is that Marx, Lenin and Trotsky would have been appalled at this careless theoretical revisionism. Both Bolshevism as a political current and Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution were founded on a distinction between workers and peasants.
[4] Paul Murphy and Jess Spear, ‘The Necessity of Ecosocialist Degrowth’, Rupture Issue 7, Spring 2022.
[5] See Karl Marx, The German Ideology (Germany, 1846), Ch. 1 - Interestingly this important passage is also referenced by Trotsky in The Revolution Betrayed (New Park, p.56) in relation to the degeneration of the Russian revolution.
[6] See Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto (Germany, 1848), Ch. 2[5] The Jevons paradox referred to by Spear and Murphy would not apply under socialism.
[6] See Interview with Giorgios Kallis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alp2ZJnvwW8
[7] It is probably incorrect to describe Jason Hickel as an ecosocialist, certainly in the sense we mean it, but he does claim to be anti-capitalist
[8] See Alan Thornett, Facing the Apocalypse: Arguments for Ecosocialism, (London, 2019) Ch. 14 Population.