Article

Beyond the Growth Paradigm

Degrowth

TC Lin/getty images


THE CREATIVE DESTRUCTION OF NEOCLASSICAL ECONOMICS

Deep in a recession and with scary ecological scenarios looming, now may be the ripest moment we’ll ever have to power-shift global capitalism onto a new path. Adbusters #85 asks economics students around the world to join the fight to revamp Econ 101 curriculums and challenge the endemic myopia of their tenured neoclassical profs. Go to KICKITOVER.ORG, read a few texts, download the Kick it Over Manifesto (and other posters) and whack them up in the corridors of your campus. Make sure your university is at the forefront of the paradigm shift from neoclassical to ecological economics now underway. If you’re an economics student, email kevin@adbusters.org to receive a half price copy of Adbusters #85.


A new intellectual renaissance has begun, and it promises to do for the 21st century what the first one did for the 14th: reassert reason over dogma to redefine our collective frame of reference. The difference this time is that the dogma is economic not ecclesiastic, and the stakes for the planet are immeasurably higher.

Degrowth, décroissance in French, traces its intellectual origins to Romanian economist Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen who showed that the very act of exploiting the Earth’s finite resources degrades the total store of energy available. In his seminal 1971 book The Entropy Law, he wrote that once a product is made, the energy that went into it becomes transformed and can never be returned to its original state. Even recycled goods show some degree of energy degradation. As more natural energy is transformed by human industry, less “usable” energy is left for future generations. As energy falls, entropy rises, and entropy in this case consists of random, useless energy: waste.

Arresting endless growth does not mean going backward. “A degrowth society project is radically different from negative growth,” writes Serge Latouche, emeritus professor of economy at the University of Paris and one of the lead voices of the décroissance movement. “The first can be compared to an austere therapy that is voluntarily undertaken to improve one’s well-being when we are under the threat of obesity through overconsumption. The second is the forced diet, which can lead to death through famine. It has been said time and time again. There is nothing worse than a growth society without growth.”

The key to achieving this rationalism lies in politicizing our culture to revive the idea of citizenship … ecological citizenship. We currently have corporate determinism, not political leadership and a society of consumers, not of citizens. People are little more than factors of production in a sort of corporatist/Marxist economic dystopia.

By recognizing that unchecked economic growth itself is the problem, degrowth is more mature and rational than the more familiar environmental or enviro-political movements. As Professor Valérie Fournier at the University of Leicester School of Management wrote in the International Journal of Sociology:

“In becoming mainstream, sustainability has been washed out of its more radical questioning of economic models, and especially economic growth … If there is to be any hope of a sustainable future, it is precisely economic growth that needs to be called into question. Sustainable development and ecological modernization only serve to ‘sustain the unsustainable’; they not only absolve major corporations and a capitalist economy of endless growth of environmental responsibilities, but also cast them as the new heroes of sustainability.”

Another improvement over mainstream environmentalism is degrowth’s rejection of populism. In order that it become a mass movement with mechanisms that can link local communities into a broad political movement, degrowth cannot be managed at the local or direct level: “It is for this reason that the Parti pour la Décroissance was created, and that proponents of degrowth support representative democracy. They argue that while direct democracy is appropriate at small local level, it cannot be organized beyond small groups of 50 people, thus excluding the majority of citizens.” The movement took a major step forward in April 2008 when more than 140 international researchers in economics and the natural and social sciences met in Paris for the inaugural conference on Economic Degrowth for Ecological Sustainability and Social Equity.

The logic of degrowth is impeccable, and we deny it at our peril. Latouche put our choice best in the title of one of his essays: “Degrowth, whether you like it or not.”

Greg Felton is a political columnist and the author of The Host and the Parasite: How Israel’s Fifth Column Consumed America. He is an urban gardener in his spare time.

Support + Share

Help us spread the word. Share it online with your friends or subscribe to the print edition.

Adbusters #85 Sep/Oct 2009

Thought Control in Economics

All Comments

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
October
29, 2009
08:21 pm
Link

Yo, Greggie Boy.
I noticed on your web site that you're promoting a Stephen Lewis fund-raiser.

hmmm. Being the self-declared expert on the evil of Zionism and being the pseudo-intellectual that you are, you surely must know that Stephen Lewis is an honorable member of both the Bnai Br'ith and Canadian Jewish Congress. Seems curious why you would want to participate in a Zionist sponsored event. - So what are you really trying to do Greg, - STEAL MONEY FROM A CHARITY dedicated to helping Africans with AIDS.
Doesn't get any lower Greggie Boy.

September
08, 2009
04:36 pm
Link

What's with the personality clash? What happened to the main topic? Sometimes I wonder if the radical left would thrive better if we all were on tranquilizers. Or maybe the problem with many of us (me included) is that we are "Demonic Males," genetically programmed to fight each other to death for sociobiological reasons that are "justified" in the name of one ideology or another, but have nada to do with any of them. That's a long way of saying it would be good to see some rational debate/discussion between Felton and Schwartz, minus the personal attacks. The angry name-calling seems to me like useless intellectual noise, when we need to be exchanging real content ... real ideas .. including genuinely clashing ideas, if appropriate. I think I disagree with Felton on Zionism and insurrection, topics outside this political/economic string. But I'm impressed with what Felton's saying about "degrowth." But maybe you, Schwartz, have some valid things to say about growth & degrowth, also? Could the two of you get back to that topic, growth vs. degrowth, and let the rest of us judge your reasoning on the growth question, and where that reasoning might lead a left / and/or anarchist and/or reformist movement?

September
08, 2009
11:27 pm
Link

Thanks for your comment, John. Please allow me to make a few points.

1) I did not engage in name-calling with D. Schwartz. I responded once and only to his (or her) provocation and did so effectively, and within the bounds of respectful discourse. The name-calling is all on D Schwartz's side, and this should tell you something.

2) D. Schwartz has no interest in an intelligent discussion about degrowth. To judge from the attacks upon me, this person is a zionist troll who exists for the sole purpose of denigrating those who criticize Israel. Hence, no rational debate is possible.

3) I thank you for your appreciative comments about my article, and I would enjoy discussing the subject with you further.

4) I would also be interested in discussing the issue of zionism with you.

September
20, 2009
12:42 am
Link

"1) I did not engage in name-calling with D. Schwartz....
2) [D. Schwartz] is a zionist troll"

October
08, 2009
11:47 am
Link

burn

September
02, 2009
07:57 pm
Link

I haven't seen anyone mentioning Malthus these days, but unless we migrate to a new planet, the only way to tackle the question of growth is reducing the population. I' not talking about plagues, wars, or mass murdering, even if those disgraces will come anyway if we don't act accordingly. The question is that we need to stay in a sustainable level of population according to the available resources of the planet.
The problem is that we are being doing nothing but that since we became humans. Actually, seems like that's why we became so successful as specie: our ability to adapt to new conditions made us unbeatable on conquering new lands, displacing other species. "Go West" , "Be fruitful and multiply", is being always the motto. Capitalism replaced the aim to conquer land with the search for new markets. But now we have clearly reached the limit on that too.

Even if we decide to act that way: what are we going to aim for, if we get deprived of a goal we are been pursuing for centuries? Will we be able to adapt to a world forced to steadiness and preservation? or will we break out in violent classes, as we did in the two world wars? No doubt we have already new challenges to keep us busy, but will be that enough to keep us in peace?

August
18, 2009
03:42 pm
Link
Interesting idea and brilliant realization that the prevaricators of ‘middle-class consume your ass off’ economics are the same ones who promote sustainability projects in a capitalist system. Our eco-guilt will lead us towards wind and solar farms being base-loaded with natural gas. To a cap-and trade system that becomes a quasi-wall street. These are the solutions of free markets we need to degrow indeed great edition!!
August
18, 2009
05:47 am
Link
Thank you, Adbusters, for featuring a comment that I have submitted, now displayed on your front page! This was a confident article that couldn’t be featured anywhere more appropriate. Thanks Greg Felton, you give us a glimpse of the shadow around the corner. If we can become mobilized, my generation will become the comet that kills the socioeconomic dinosaurs. Adbusters helps inspire true individualism while at the same time giving a feeling of collective responsibility that puts value to my generation’s energy - thank you again!
August
18, 2009
10:55 pm
Link
I love the quaint angst from one of “your generation.” Very culture-jammerish. You think that this magazine, in any way, shape or form espouses individualism? It’s merely the lowest form (or newest form) of group-think liberal dogma. …but you get busy killing the dinosaurs, Sport.
August
18, 2009
11:10 pm
Link
Dogma is a doctrine proclaimed as true without proof. Religion is based on it, as is the official narrative of Sept. 11. Adbusters offers points of view based on reasoned argument, a form of proof. Clearly, you need to reacquaint yourself with a dictionary. It is tiresome to read pusillanimous, non-cognitive denials from those who persist in denigrating informed commentary to prop up an intellectually and morally bankrupt status quo. Greg Felton
August
18, 2009
01:56 am
Link
www.gregfelton.com D Schwartz
August
18, 2009
01:00 pm
Link
Thanks for the plug, but it really wasn’t necessary. Greg Felton
August
27, 2009
11:10 am
Link
A vile, misplaced delusion Gregory. Your propagation of conspiracy theories and half-truths take away from public discourse that could have a positive impact on civil society. I am saddened the Adbusters has chosen you to represent their ideals, which have clearly been forgotten in place of armchair socio-political ramblings. So it goes. |d schwartz|
September
05, 2009
02:00 pm
Link

Ah, the verbal effluvium of the cognitively impaired! You denigrate me and my writing yet can offer no evidence to back up your claims. It is enough for you to insult and run away. For your edification, if a theory can be supported by evidence and logic it cannot be smugly dismissed as a half-truth or "conspiracy theory." Since I provide copious evidence to debunk the official narrative of Sept. 11--and in this I am supported by more than 700 scientists who proved the role of thermite in the demolition--I have to conclude that you cannot refute this evidence.

I am contributing to public discourse, whereas you would stifle informed debate.

September
07, 2009
12:45 am
Link

Keep patting yourself on the back. My verbal diarrhea pales in comparison to the unsophisticated, narrow-minded geo-political analysis that you publish. I do have neither the space nor the time to counter your book point for point. I don't think it would help either, you are clearly well-steeped in your beliefs; you sound like a suburban white mother analyzing The Wu Tang Clan -- you can't see the forest for the trees.

September
09, 2009
06:19 pm
Link

Greg Felton, 1: Verbal Effluvium, 0

August
16, 2009
10:18 pm
Link
Glad to see my story has generated some debate, although Anonymous #1’s denial mechanism seems to be working overtime. The difference between the irrational religion of Western consumerism and the rational intellectualism of degrowth lies in the recognition that unbridled self-interest is self-destructive, and blind acceptance of self-destruction as an economic strategy is irrational. In our age of banksters, the Federal Reserve system, and corporations having more rights then citizens, the right to say “no” to self-destruction though private greed is eminently rational, logical and estimable. Greg Felton
August
15, 2009
12:47 pm
Link
The typical drivel of the weak-minded and hollow, urban social “progressive.” This lays a good foundation for your new religion of ecological citizenship. How conflicted you must be - disavowing religion for “reason” only to be espousing the newest, non-thinking, shallowest of all religions - sustainability. I take this as a call to arms - a clash of civilizations and believe you me, we, the rational and the defender of the individual will never allow this kind of deceptive dogma to become anything more than your wet dream. The new zealot fundamentalists like Klein and this Felton will remain where they should be - marginalized by society.
August
16, 2009
03:50 pm
Link
This article points out the fallacy of sustainability being the answer, but then Anonymous asserts the author is a follower of “sustainability” as “the shallowest of all religions”, whatever that is supposed to mean. As for the other religion Anonymous notes…“ecological citizenship”, Anonymous is obviously clueless to his own corporate citizenship. Pity your ignorance Anonymous, time is not on the side of you, and yours.
August
13, 2009
03:08 am
Link
For a very good and detailed explanation of the problems with current economic models, see the last few posts on John Michael Greer’s blog here: http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/ - Justin
August
13, 2009
01:22 am
Link
If you ever had the feeling that something was wrong in this world. You were right all along. Please read these articles and watch and you make your own decision. http://gregpytel.blogspot.com/2009/04/largest-heist-in-history.html http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29127316/the_great_american_b… http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/blackmoney/view/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/breakingthebank/view/
August
12, 2009
01:27 am
Link
People can be tricked or taught to love systems and facilitate programs that destroy themselves or put them in danger.” You have to unlearn you learning. Make your mind strong and nothing can hurt you.
August
08, 2009
08:18 am
Link
The key to proper economics is a return to stable currencies through the elimination of Federal Reserve Banks and fractional reserve banking. It’s so easy! Why doesn’t anybody mention these things?! Phony money is what the consumer culture feeds on. Please get on the bandwagon!–Lloyd Pitcher
August
07, 2009
10:30 pm
Link
Tell your family and friends about this - even if they don’t understand it at first - repetition is the key.

We are a global network of culture jammers and creatives working to change the way information flows, the way corporations wield power, and the way meaning is produced in our society.

Now 83,840 strong!

Join Us >>

TOOLS FOR ACTIVISTS

What's This?

RECENT ADBUSTERS MAGAZINES

Logo Small