Original article (in Croatian) was published on 08/09/2023; Author: Matea Grgurinovic
The concept of degrowth has been discussed in the Croatian public space for the past few days, during a conference supported by the mayor of Zagreb.
More often we are witnessing the devastating consequences of climate change, while the deterioration of living conditions affects an increasing number of the Earth’s inhabitants. In addition, there are frequent calls for alternatives to the existing system of social organization; climate activists warn us that there is no unlimited economic growth on a planet with limited resources. Increasingly, degrowth is mentioned as an alternative to the existing system.
From August 29 to September 2, an international conference on degrowth “Planet, people, care – that’s called degrowth!” was held in Zagreb. In addition to the conference that took place in the first part of the day, panels were organized in the afternoon that were open to the public and discussed numerous topics, from the connection between degrowth and work to “cities in the post-growth era”.
Some Croatian journalists (Jutarnji list, Index) interpreted degrowth as a radical left-wing idea that promotes complete abandonment of economic growth and development. This kind of “interpretation” of the ideas presented at the mentioned conference is probably largely because one of the main speakers was the Japanese philosopher Kohei Saito, whom the Jutarnji list journalist calls the “Japanese Marx”.
Saito is the author of the book “Capital in the Anthropocene”, a bestseller in Japan. In his book, Saito provides a new reading of Karl Marx, bringing together his theses and themes of ecology, building on the earlier work of theorists such as Murray Bookchin and John Bellamy Foster. In his work, Saito talks about degrowth communism, i.e. redefining abundance, as well as redistribution and compensation of resources.
However, the international movement that is forming around the idea of degrowth is not unique to such ideas. Not all advocates of growth necessarily have an anti-capitalist stance, nor do they all advocate a break with the free market. After all, even the Japanese Marxist philosopher Saito is not talking about completely stopping or limiting economic growth.
“Like many other people who deal with adulthood, I limit my argument to the global north, developed countries like the UK, Japan and the USA. It is obvious that I am in favour of growth for those poor countries in the global south”, he said to The Guardian.
What is “degrowth” really?
The idea of décroissance (French for degrowth) and its beginnings date back to 1972, while in our country terms such as degrowth, post-growth and green growth are used in the last ten years, mainly through the work of the Institute for Political Ecology (IPE), which in 2016, in cooperation with the publishing house Fraktura, published the Croatian edition of the book Degrowth: Glossary for a New Era.
IPE is also one of the organizers of the conference on degrowth recently held in Zagreb, and Zagreb city institutions were among the sponsors of the conference. The mayor of Zagreb, Tomislav Tomasevic, was the program manager of the Institute for Political Ecology, so it is expected that the idea of degrowth is close to him.
In the foreword to the mentioned book, Mladen Domazet from IPE and the current Deputy Mayor of the City of Zagreb, Danijela Dolenec, who worked with IPE as a member of the academic council and management board of the organization, give a definition of the concept of degrowth. That term, as they write, is used both for a social movement and for “a conceptual framework with which we differently depict the conversion and use of energy and materials on planet Earth, the social structures that use part of that energy, and the management mechanisms that direct that use”.
Degrowth, according to them, represents moving away from the imperative of growth, and the Croatian translation, as they write, has “the connotation of degrowth as maturing and stopping the physical growth of an individual”.
Philosopher André Gorz, one of the pioneers of political ecology in France, has been warning about the potential dangers of ‘green’ capitalism and techno-fascism since the early 1970s. He believed that the destruction of resources and our environmental footprint could be reduced only by reducing production and consumption, therefore he proposed self-managed degrowth so that production is tailored to the needs of the population. Gorz had three demands: a guaranteed income for everyone regardless of work, clear policies aimed at reducing working hours and the implementation of measures aimed at expanding the space for autonomous, non-commercial activities.
Vincent Liegey, engineer, interdisciplinary researcher, essayist and lecturer, one of the most prominent French representatives of degrowth, who also participated in the conference in Zagreb, says that degrowth “is the result of criticism of consumerism on the one hand, and on the other of criticism that comes from the global south”.
“Advertising and growth insist on the consumption and lifestyle of the wealthiest as an end in itself so that we can be happy, while degrowth invites us to decolonize this myth and reclaim a sense of boundaries to rediscover balance while respecting the physical limitations of the environment”, Liegey says in an interview for Novosti. The reduction of consumption and productivity is seen by some as one of the central issues of degrowth.
Therefore, the theoretical concept of “degrowth” does not have one meaning or one clear definition. And in the preface of the book Degrowth: A Glossary for a New Era, it is stated that it is “not a rigidly formed discipline of thought”, and “even less a given strategy”. In addition, there are also questions about the real possibilities of “lowering” degrowth from the theoretical to the practical level, that is, about the real possibilities of implementing the concept of degrowth.
Proponents of degrowth see the use of gross domestic product (GDP) as a measure of well-being as another problem. “In addition to not measuring human well-being, the problem with GDP is that it interprets every cost in a positive light, so the costs of cleaning up after an oil spill contribute to increasing the GDP of a country, while, on the other hand, growing vegetables for own consumption it doesn’t count”, write Domazet and Dolenec.
Some see, for example, the human development index (HDI), developed as part of the United Nations Development Program, as a better measure of well-being and progress, which measures average achievements in key dimensions of human development, for example, a long and healthy life or a decent standard of living.
Degrowth and workers
Along with issues such as abundance, redistribution of resources, limiting consumption and productivism – the idea that it is always necessary to produce as much as possible – one of the main points of discussion about degrowth is the issue of work and labor; from what the organization of work itself would look like in a society that has removed the emphasis from growth and productivism (will, for example, work more or less), to which jobs will be needed in such a society and which will not.
The ‘reconciliation’ of the issues of work and labor and growing up was the topic of one of the panels at the conference, the one entitled “Industry, Labor, Work – Degrowth Perspective on Political Economy for Global Periphery”.
However, although the issue of work organization, as well as the workforce, is important for the discussion on degrowth, the panelists pointed out that workers and trade unions do not see issues of degrowth and climate change as issues that directly concern them.
The workers are demanding that the union resolve their immediate issues and problems, such as non-payment of wages and overtime. Also, workers do not think that unions should deal with environmental and climate change issues, even though the climate crisis will affect – and is already affecting – jobs.
As Faktograf already wrote, when we reported on the presentation of the study “Climate and Work: Adaptations of Workplaces and Workers to the Climate Crisis” by economist Ana-Marie Boromisa (also one of the participants in the aforementioned panel), the unbearable heat will further exacerbate all social injustices, and above all inequality.
Low- and middle-income workers are more vulnerable to the effects and costs of the transition, which include access to financing to improve the energy efficiency of buildings, as well as rising energy and food bills. Those who are already working in low-paid jobs are unlikely to secure their own assets from the consequences of the climate crisis such as floods and fires. Thus, the deprived part of society, which contributes less to the crisis, will be more affected by it, the publication states.
However, many critics from the left view the policies advocated by the proponents of degrowth as green ‘austerity measures’, where – it can be assumed – those who are already the most vulnerable and the poorest will suffer the most. Workers’ representatives therefore often see degrowth policies, economic contraction, reduction of GDP and productivism as something that will lead to the deterioration of their material conditions, lowering of wages and labor prices, and deterioration of living conditions.
Unions and degrowth
Pablo Sanchez from the European Public Service Union (EPSU) pointed out on the panel that historically unions have not been so involved in the discussion about degrowth, since it has always been considered that degrowth means more jobs, more jobs means more union members, which consequently leads to greater (negotiating) power that unions have, and which they naturally want.
Using the example of dengue fever, whose number of cases is increasing, so in 2022 there were more cases of West Nile virus infection than in the past two decades, Sanchez says that it is necessary to redefine the meaning of progress. Instead of looking at it only and exclusively through the prism of growth and GDP, progress must mean improving the position of everyone, especially the poorer ones.
Panelist Darko Seperic, executive secretary for public policies, projects and education of the Association of Independent Trade Unions of Croatia (SSSH), also pointed out that the unions did not get involved in discussions about degrowth, “since they see economic growth as a prerequisite for improving the material position of workers”.
“The majority of workers join unions and pay membership fees because they want immediate protection and immediate improvement of their position”, said Seperic, noting that unions were never revolutionary organizations, although the history of the first half of the 20th century and syndicalism knows the National Confederation of Labor (Confederación Nacional del Trabajo, CNT) and the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), which can be defined as part of the movement of revolutionary syndicalism.
Seperic also said that it is easier to deal with discussions such as the one about degrowth at the higher levels of the union. “However, the reality is that the lower levels of trade unions, sectoral organizations and those in companies, are more interested in everyday life issues, therefore it is difficult to expect that more trade unions will mobilize around these issues”.
“It is not very practical or efficient to spend time hoping that unions will declare that they support degrowth. Therefore, I think it is more useful to turn to the points that traditionally connect the youth movement and trade unions and create concrete alliances and campaigns”, added Seperic.
“The social contract after the Second World War was that the increase in productivity and growth would be shared between capital on the one hand and wages on the other, but that social contract has not worked since the 1980s. It is clear that for decades the social contract has not responded to our demands”, Ludovic Voet from the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) said during the panel.
He also expressed concern about whether degrowth can be interpreted as ecological austerity measures.
“Because austerity measures are precisely what people have experienced in recent decades and what they fear. People are afraid of being the losers of globalization. Unfortunately, we see that at the moment it is almost impossible to have discussions about the climate and our way of life, because every type of climate policy is seen as limiting our way of life”, added Voet.
Telling people to limit flying or not to go on vacation “when 40 percent of people in France don’t go on vacation, 49 percent of people in the EU don’t buy certain foods in the supermarket, and 20 percent of them skip a meal during the week”, is not sustainable, he said and added that “it is essential to build a political majority that will enable these demands to be transformed”.