ŷ

Kevin's Reviews > Slow Down: The Degrowth Manifesto

Slow Down by Kōhei Saitō
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
35434974
Economic Democracy within Planetary Boundaries

--This is my top priority topic, so let’s dive right in�

The Questionable:
1) Labels and Framing:
--I think a manifesto should start broad for a wider audience, while having a coherent and principled direction. Thus, my go-to intro on degrowth remains Hickel’s Less is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World.
--Saito’s book, while well-written, is more advanced in its framing (from labels to sources used). Is Saito’s use of the provocative label “degrowth communism� (after 3 chapters of build-up) effective?

1a) 𲵰Ƿɳٳ�:
--I’m actually more frustrated by the confusion this label generates amongst radicals who are fine with labels like “socialism�! We can only excuse a part of this due to concerns over Malthusian elitist conservationism against the masses (ex. “overpopulation� fear-mongering conveniently hiding the elite’s colossal consumption/waste/control over production/investment), which I unpack in the messy Less Sucks: Overpopulation, Eugenics, and Degrowth.
…However, it’s the political economy confusion from several of my top influences that I find perplexing. Critics like anarchist Chomsky (in The Climate Crisis and the Global Green New Deal: The Political Economy of Saving the Planet) and socialists/Marxists like Radhika Desai (see 56:33 of ) always start with: sure, we need degrowth in certain areas, but we still need growth in areas crucial for social needs. …As if degrowth wants to stop everything from growing, including your children.
…They simply avoid the anti-capitalist foundations of radical degrowth (which they share!) in order to confuse degrowth with (capitalist) austerity, leading to (capitalist) “stagnation�/recession. Palm meets face.
…Desai then says Neoliberalism (since 1970s) actually hurts economic growth, implying economic growth is not a key driver of environmental overshoot:
i) I assume Desai is confusing economic growth with “development�, which Neoliberalism did indeed sacrifice.
ii) Even if the rate of annual GDP growth has lessened during Neoliberalism, the overall GDP is still experiencing compound growth (scary how unintuitive this rising curve is, as we always assume linear growth). The growth rate is applied annually to the growing base that includes previous growth; a constant 3% annual growth rate would mean total GDP doubles in 23 years!
...Of course, GDP is not directly the driver; it is an aggregate indicator of individual capitalists' goal of endless accumulation via profits/rents. Once again, the focus for capitalism's “economic health� (to prevent this volatile system from crashing) is on its extractive rates (flows; ever-more short-term; see Harvey's time-space compression) which contradicts with future costs/finite planet's resources (stocks; long-term)/their socioecological reproduction flows (long-term, from raising children to building communities to the biosphere's cycles).
iii) Is Desai seriously recommending we return to the economic growth rate of post-WWII boom’s Military Keynesianism, the start of the “Great Acceleration� in overshooting planetary boundaries? (Facing the Anthropocene: Fossil Capitalism and the Crisis of the Earth System) …Imagine applying that annual growth rate onto our current GDP! Are we trying to build a wind turbine for every person?!

--Degrowth’s anti-capitalist foundations:
i) “Growth� here refers to economic growth, notoriously measured by the “GDP� (Gross Domestic Product: summing up the monetary value of domestic market transactions) normalized after its role measuring WWII war production. On a deeper level, market transactions require:
a) “Artificial scarcity�:
--Markets for “real commodities� long pre-date capitalism. Capitalism’s peculiar markets were born from the “Enclosures� in Britain which privatized land (creating the land market) so proto-entrepreneurs (financed by debt, thus the money market) could use it to produce wool and thus textiles as a (real) commodity for global markets; the serfs dispossessed of land had nothing to sell but their labour (creating the labour market). For more on land/labour/money being “fictitious commodities� (not produced just for buying/selling), see: Why Can't You Afford a Home?.
--Common access had to be violently prohibited (removing freedoms for the many) in order to create great freedoms for the biggest property owners to extract the raw materials and labour (fictitious commodities) needed to produce (real) commodities, ensnaring the masses in market dependency to sell their labour, purchase their goods/services, pay their taxes, rent land, fall into debt etic. since they lost their means of production/autonomy (a foundational capitalist contradiction up to today’s automation). Saito calls this the “Tragedy of the Commodity�, to counter the .
--The value system under capitalist markets is dictated by market exchange-value. A forest (with unquantifiable socioecological value) has no capitalist economic value, unless it is (1) cut down and sold (exchanged) as timber commodities, (2) privatized and rented or hoarded for fictitious exchange on speculative financial markets (ex. carbon offset markets), or (3) burnt down (where fire-fighting services stimulates market exchange, indeed GDP). This is the viral rationality of capitalism.
--Saito references the Lauderdale Paradox theorizing the inverse relationship between public wealth (Commons) vs. private wealth (artificial scarcity), by the eighth Earl of Lauderdale’s 1804 An Inquiry into the Nature and Origin of Public Wealth. This was not able to dethrone Adam Smith’s glorification of capitalism’s private wealth accumulation benefiting the public in 1776’s An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, as the socioecological costs of the rise of capitalism was conveniently externalized from the ivory towers and onto the masses (dispossessed working class in “dark Satanic mills�/urban slums without sanitation/coal mines/workhouses at home, to slave plantations/coolies/indigenous genocide abroad).
b) “Radical abundance�:
--Thus, degrowth challenges the growth of artificial scarcity to force labour/ecological services for the super-parasites� endless accumulation. Beyond our basic needs (where capitalism still incentivizes linear waste rather than sustainable circularity: Gone Tomorrow: The Hidden Life of Garbage), capitalism’s logic is that of social addiction to keep its boom/bust elite accumulation going.
--As capital is allowed to traverse the globe in nanoseconds, labour struggles to keep up as its increasingly-precarious hamster wheel of work (Bullshit Jobs: A Theory; The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class)/vapid entertainment/stress consumerism to recover from work (Captains Of Consciousness: Advertising And The Social Roots Of The Consumer Culture) keep us distracted from the use-value of a fulfilling life: autonomy not just for our own time but also for the socioecological communities we build with that free time.
…Over-work, over-production with mal-distribution, addictive mass consumerism, all amidst artificial scarcity to discipline the masses and no value for socioecological relations, this quantitative cancerous growth is no longer achieving quality of life improvements (The Myth of Normal: Trauma, Illness, and Healing in a Toxic Culture). The value system to reverse this sickness is antithetical to the decay of today’s capitalism: decolonization, Commons (ex. People's Power: Reclaiming the Energy Commons), more free time and value for care-work and long-term ecological relationships, cooperation/reciprocity, universal social services, creative workers� autonomy rather than disciplined division-of-labour, etc.
--For debunking “green growth�, Saito mirrors the intro from Hickel’s Less is More, while also mentioning the use of planetary boundaries in Raworth’s Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist while noting Raworth is less clear on critiquing the capitalist root (production/markets/class).

ii) Degrowth targets the Global North’s overextraction of the Global South (The Imperial Mode of Living: Everyday Life and the Ecological Crisis of Capitalism), thus acknowledging the Global South requires “growth� to decolonize and improve their standard of living.
…I would add that even the latter can benefit from an anti-capitalist degrowth lens: the Global South needs space (currently suffocated by rent-seeking foreign debt/intellectual property/cash crop trade dependency, which Global South elites also conveniently exploit) for radical alternatives to leap-frog over the Global North’s fossil fuel/artificial scarcity/class domination/crisis-ridden development path, otherwise the initial infrastructure would lock in the Global South for escalating emissions and little grassroots power to dismantle it! (Elsewhere, Saito references André Gorz’s “open� vs. “locking� technologies).
…After all, the Global North’s path requires an external source (Global South) for super-exploitation and to externalize its many socioecological crises.
…So much of capitalism’s wasteful means of production are already outsourced to the Global South. Of course, this is mal-formed into scattered subcontractors to promote ruthless competition and prevent substantial nationalization, which is why South-South cooperation is foundational to pool resources and de-link from Global North’s rent-seeking Finance capitalism (debt/intellectual property).
-ex. (IBSA: India, Brazil, South Africa: South-South cooperation where India shared its means of production in pharmaceuticals, blocked by Global North’s Big Pharma intellectual property rent-seeking).
-Capital and Imperialism: Theory, History, and the Present
-A People’s Green New Deal

1b) “CdzܲԾ�:
--While this label may become more viable for younger generations, the Cold War Red Scare era boomers (Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism) are a significant demographic owning most of capitalist assets.
…Curiously, capitalism’s unparalleled volatility (recall The Communist Manifesto: “All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned�) is hidden in abstraction (ex. “hot money� gentrifying booms and capital flight busts), opening a vacuum for conservatives to scapegoat visible changes (immigrants, i.e. labour trying to catch up with capital movement).
…Ex. Jordan Peterson’s critique of “chaos� (12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos) carefully avoids capitalism, putting the blame on Leftists who critique the status quo (assumed as stable, when in reality the volatility is built into the status quo: Thinking in Systems: A Primer).
…Saito frames “communism� as following degrowth’s aim to reverse artificial scarcity/global finance dependency and build radical abundance of Commons, cooperation, and self/community autonomy, where economic democracy is foundational.
…So, if we sum up these labels, I would say “degrowth communism� can be translated as “use-value economic democracy� or “economic democracy within planetary boundaries�. Labels will always be limited, so the sooner we jump to the content, the better.

2) Political Action…How?:
--This topic is only briefly mentioned near the end; I would like more in a manifesto.
…Saito repeats what seems like the standard academic-Left answer here: referencing �3.5 per cent�, the percentage of the population required for nonviolent civil resistance to win according to the research of Chenoweth’s Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict. This is also the centerpiece of Extinction Rebellion: This Is Not A Drill: An Extinction Rebellion Handbook
--Saito also briefly outlines the lineage of direct action/participatory democracy/citizens� assemblies: i) 1993 Via Campesina’s (“The Peasants� Way�) international farmers� cooperative struggling for food sovereignty/agroecology vs. capitalist agriculture’s capital-intensive monocrops/export crop trade deals/debts/intellectual property; 1994 Zapatista uprising in protest of the start of NAFTA.
ii) Extinction Rebellion; Yellow Vests; Ecuador’s indigenous movements� buen vivir (“to live well�); Standing Rock Dakota Access Pipeline protests; Barcelona’s “Fearless Cities� movement, etc.
-A People’s Green New Deal
-The Red Deal: Indigenous Action to Save Our Earth
-This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate

…see the comments for the rest of the review (“The Good�)...
88 likes · flag

Sign into ŷ to see if any of your friends have read Slow Down.
Sign In »

Reading Progress

February 22, 2024 – Shelved
March 1, 2024 – Started Reading
March 12, 2024 – Finished Reading

Comments Showing 1-13 of 13 (13 new)

dateDown arrow    newest »

Kevin The Good:

--The previous section unpacked the tricky labels/framing, suggesting that this book may be a hard sell as an intro. However, I still give this book 5 stars as it’s a treat for radicals who want to synthesize the following:
i) Marx’s critique of capitalism
ii) environmentalism
iii) decolonization
--By starting to decipher Marx’s mountain of unpublished manuscripts, Saito tries to unearth the direction of the later Marx in transcending the earlier Marx’s:

1) Productivism:
--The style of 29-year-old Marx/27-year-old Engels in the The Communist Manifesto (during the midst of the 1848 revolutions) resembled that of modernist glorification of material productivity, of humans conquering nature, as a progressive stage in historical development:
The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalization of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground � what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?
…However, the later Marx showed more concern over the socioecological costs of productivism, starting with passages on soil fertility in 1867’s Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 1.
--Saito focuses on the mysterious stall in Marx’s Capital project which saw him never finishing Capital Volume 2 and 3, let alone the further volumes he planned. According to Saito, Marx became fascinated by the advances in ecological sciences (keep in mind the explosion of sciences at the time, including Darwin’s 1859 On the Origin of Species which impressed Marx).
--A key influence was the German agricultural chemist Justus von Liebig, who warned of the “robbery system� where agriculture for short-term profits and capitalism’s rural-urban division of labour created what Marxists today call a “metabolic rift� where nutrients (urban consumption of rural foods where waste goes into the sewage) are not return to the (rural) soil’s metabolic cycle.
…This requires the “law of compensation� via escalating use of finite fertilizers, which actually lead to colonial conquest for guano (bird excrement) sources, cheap labour to harvest (indigenous/Chinese) and subsequent resource wars. Technocrats will point to the later (just before WWI) invention of the Haber–Bosch process to produce the inorganic fertilizer ammonia. This, however, relies substantially on fossil fuels, where the methane emissions imbalance other metabolic cycles (carbon).
…This escalating compensation keeps externalizing capitalism’s rising costs off its own balance sheets and onto others in space (the “periphery�) and time (indebting future generations). Après moi le déluge! [after me, the flood!] is the watchword of every capitalist and of every capitalist nation.� (Marx, Capital Vol. 1, Ch.10 section 5). For more on capitalism in space/time, see Harvey’s A Companion to Marx's Capital.


Kevin 2) Eurocentrism:
--While early Marx was critical of colonial violence, his assumption of modernist stages of development meant acknowledging the benefits of colonialism bringing the dynamic capitalist mode of production to societies that were stagnant/without history. A clear example is Marx’s 1853 “British Rule in India� New York Tribune article; such examples led Edward W. Said to critique Marx as an “Orientalist�.
--Marx’s 1867 Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 1 has a preface with the passage: “The country that is more developed industrially only shows, to the less developed, the image of its own future.�
…Russian revolutionary Vera Zasulich wrote to Marx asking for clarification on whether Marx meant countries like Russia had to go through a stage of capitalism (enclosures and mass production) before reaching socialism/communism, when Russia already had forms of communal land use (mirs). Saito points to Marx’s 1881 response as a shift, where Marx limits his prior analysis to Western Europe and praises mirs in his 1882 preface to the second edition of The Communist Manifesto.
--Saito traces this shift to right after Marx published Capital, Volume 1 in 1867, once again unearthing Marx’s explorations in ecological sciences. Another key influence here was agriculturist Karl Fraas on climate and civilizational collapse, where communal land use meant more ecological resilience. Far from being backwards, “barbarians� practiced advanced sustainability.
--Saito ties this with another influence, German legal historian Georg Ludwig von Maurer, who details the lineage of German communal land use forbidding the external trading of land/food, the focus on soil renewal, and lottery rotation to ensure egalitarian land use. Marx’s explorations into the Commons in non-Western/pre-capitalist societies (indigenous in America/India/Algeria/South America, as well as pre-capitalist ancient Rome) led to a shift away from Eurocentrism “without history� to seeing steady-state sustainability as a step towards communism, which Saito ties with “indigenous communism� from Capital, Volume 3 (I list some debates on “primitive communism� in reviewing The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity).

…thus, Saito contends that Marx shed his earlier productivism and Eurocentrism to move in the direction of “degrowth communism�.


Stefanos Great review Kevin!

I recently read Slow Down and really loved it! I found Saito’s synthesis of Marxism and Degrowth very insightful. I was reading Fully Automated Luxury Communism just before that and Slow Down was just the perfect antidote to Bastani’s techno-utopianism based on green growth.

I haven’t read Jason Hickel yet. Judging from his lectures/debates, he seems to be very eloquent and provide powerful arguments. But does he essentially reach similar conclusions in Less is More, albeit from a non-(explicitly)-Marxist perspective? Do you see value in reading both?

Btw, thanks for referencing the “Tragedy of the Commodity�. Very interesting concept that seems to have slipped my mind immediately after reading about it.


Kevin Stefanos wrote: "Great review Kevin!

I recently read Slow Down and really loved it! I found Saito’s synthesis of Marxism and Degrowth very insightful. I was reading Fully Automated Luxury Communism just before tha..."


Cheers Stefanos, I enjoyed both your Slow Down and Fully Automated Luxury Communism reviews, definitely a great pairing to reflect on our framing and deeper assumptions!

I actually wrote a bit more on framing (Hickel’s pragmatism vs. Saito’s provocation) but edited it out given my review’s length, so I’m happy it won’t be wasted and we can discuss haha!

When I read, the content first has to convince me. While I try to be critical and rigorous, we all have layers of confirmation biases/heuristics. So, I really find the next step of reviewing (to communicate and convince others) a crucial test.

Thus, even if we are already onboard with Hickel’s arguments, I still find it great practice for how to structure the “degrowth� argument step-by-step, whereas Saito’s book has all these delightful tangents fitting my heuristics but may be disorienting for the unconvinced.

Despite avoiding the “socialism� label, Hickel’s foundation is still Marx’s use-value vs. exchange value, C-M-C vs. M-C-M�, commodification, so-called primitive accumulation, etc. and has radical real-world politics:
And I cannot leave out the towering figures whose words � and lives � I find myself returning to over and over again, for grounding and direction: Aimé Césaire, Frantz Fanon, Thomas Sankara, Berta Cáceres, Mahatma Gandhi, Patrice Lumumba, Samir Amin. They guide me as the ancestors.

That said, our time is scarce, and there are gaps worth prioritizing.
Ex. detailed analysis on how to build the coalitions/bargaining power to enact radical degrowth.
...The “green growth� variant of Green New Deal can point to state crisis management/mobilization during WWII and coalition with industrialists (only this time, “green�).

…What is radical growth’s plan? For me, the obvious unifying barrier is Finance capitalism:
-Global South: economic sovereignty vs. foreign debt/cash crop trade deals, rent-seeking intellectual property, land enclosures
-indigenous: economic sovereignty vs. underinvestment/local debts, land enclosures
-Global North workers: debt from asset-price inflation (esp. housing) and rent-seeking services (healthcare/education/utilities/transportation), economic sovereignty vs. underinvestment (devaluing long-term sustainability/care/free time).
…To me, I would apply Marx’s focus on contradictions/crises. Finance capitalism’s contradiction is its success in parasitism makes its casino accounting ever-more detached from the real economy’s accounting.
…Given the difficulties in the Global North with:
i) production strike (broken up and outsourced)
ii) distribution or services strike (divisive between workers vs. public users as these are often essential services)
…how about a financial payment strike? The more detached finance becomes from the real economy, the more prone it is to be severed. We build the cost-of-operations accounting and coordinate between sectors to keep the essential distribution/services running but bypass payment to rent-seeking finance� This is the empowering praxis for participants to experience who keeps the operations running. There are of course many technical and sociopolitical details to flesh out, but to me this is the obvious direction.


Kevin Mucius Scaevola wrote: "Kevin, what might be some second and third order effects of degrowth? Can we differentiate between degrowth theory and praxis? Do you believe the latter might be analogous to austerity? Maybe it ha..."

Mucius, as my review starts with labels/framing, I must first ask you to elaborate on your definition of “far right�.

--Second/third order effects: in the Global North, some sociocultural effects I’d start with include more time to build community rather than the increased precarity of work/life as folks are constantly moving (short-term relationships, neighbors become strangers) to keep up with finance capital. This ties into mental health/addiction/stress as well as social distrust/scapegoating.
--Degrowth “praxis�: what are some examples you are thinking of?
--Degrowth and austerity: Technically, we can start with “austerity� as state policies to reduce its budget deficits by cutting spending and/or raising taxes, but politically there are a range of contexts considering some states have monetary sovereignty while others are truly indebted to foreign currencies.
…in the former case, the state is controlled by financial rent-seekers who want to control the purpose (speculation) and process (credit-money with interest) of money-creation, diverting it from the state’s direct spending. This entails the expansion of artificial scarcity which is antithetical to leftist degrowth. And yes, this helps the far right.
--“rightwing, nativist shifts�: well, as a leftist I find the “nپ� rhetoric contradicts rightwing “praxis�, as reactionary opportunists are aligned with various factions of big finance/capital, while also constructing “native�/“non-native� identities to scapegoat the latter. But I must return to my first question�


Stefanos Very interesting points, thank you Kevin! A lot to think about!

I personally enjoyed Saito’s tangents but I can imagine that many readers could be put off by them, as well as his frequent repetitions or moving back and forth between topics. It sounds like Slow Down might be better suited for readers already acquainted with and sympathetic to either Marxism or Degrowth and they mainly stand to gain insights into the side that they are missing, while Less is More is great for introducing the "general public" to Degrowth. But who knows? Slow Down and Saito's previous book Marx in the Anthropocene seem to have hit a nerve in Japan; they're flying off the shelves. So under certain circumstances ...

Btw, since we are talking about accessible introductions to eco-socialist degrowth, I found the recent (youtube) videos: “Why We Need Degrowth� and “Why We Need Socialism� by Our Changing Climate to be amazing primers!


message 7: by Brad (new)

Brad Fantastic! Putting a pin on this review. I have a feeling many of these points will be salient for revisiting, whatever we decide on for the reading group's next project.


Kevin Stefanos wrote: "Very interesting points, thank you Kevin! A lot to think about!

I personally enjoyed Saito’s tangents but I can imagine that many readers could be put off by them, as well as his frequent repetit..."


“general public�:
--Unpacking this seems to be a major gap for those of us inspired to dive into theory�
--I’m attending an introductory climate class here where Naomi Klein is one of the instructors, hoping to get a better sense of how ideas actually spread and their potentials/limiations, ex. popularizing the “Green New Deal� here in North America, from the “Leap Manifesto� in Canada (despite barriers including politicians tied to fossil fuels including our third party progressive option, the socdem NDP), to the AOC/Markey Green New Deal Resolution and Sunrise Movement in the US.
…Saito only briefly mention Japan, which could be another useful case study:
One of the clearest proofs is that in June 2022, my friend Satoko Kishimoto won the election for mayor in Tokyo’s Suginami Ward. Although she worked for many years in Belgium for the international NGO Transnational Institute, she came back to Japan to run for office. She had no previous political experience and no backing from labor unions, but she campaigned on implicitly late-Marxian ideas of municipalism and the commons. She beat the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) candidate by just 187 votes. This was a big surprise to many, including me, but it clearly shows that citizens are not indifferent to what might sometimes seem like rather academic concerns with ecology, feminism, and socialism. Voters do want a more egalitarian, sustainable, and just society.

Here’s just one more recent development in Japanese politics that may be significant in light of the concerns of this book. Facing growing discontent during the COVID-19 lockdowns, the new prime minister Fumio Kishida put forward “new capitalism� as his key political vision and set up a Council of New Form of Capitalism Realization. I was not invited, perhaps in part because I am on record as opposing new forms of capitalism realization. Kishida’s New Capitalism was soon watered down in the face of a rapid fall of stock price. But a notable change is nevertheless discernible here. The prime minister explicitly criticized the LDP’s neoliberal policies over the past twenty years and stressed the need for “redistribution� by regulating the financial markets. That marks a clear contrast with the so-called “Abenomics� of the previous administration, whose commitment to trickle-down theory carefully avoided any talk of redistribution.


“Our Changing Climate�:
--Yes! I’ve recently been playing more videos/podcasts while I multi-task, and I’m pleasantly surprised with the numbers and quality I’m seeing:
-previously, I mostly relied on directly searching author lectures/interviews. Some specific channels: Geopolitical Economy (Ben Norton), Boy Boy, Mexie, People’s Dispatch’s “Give the People What They Want�/NewsClick, The Analysis (Paul Jay), Breakthrough News, Real Progressives, The Real News, etc.
-lately: What is Politics, Second Thought, Our Changing Climate, 1Dime


Kevin Brad wrote: "Fantastic! Putting a pin on this review. I have a feeling many of these points will be salient for revisiting, whatever we decide on for the reading group's next project."

Since our reading group has 2 comrades well-read on degrowth, I really want to push us to find the next detailed steps on building degrowth coalitions/bargaining power, be it case studies or theories.

But for our own understanding of socialism/Marxism (as well as our on-hiatus reading of Capital!), this book is definitely a treat, esp. the synthesis of Marxist debates on (1) imperialism with (2) ecology.


Stefanos Kevin wrote: "“Our Changing Climate�:
--Yes! I’ve recently been playing more videos/podcasts while�"


Great list Kevin! I’ll have to check some of the first ones. Just to add a few: Andriewism, Jonas Čeika, Epoch Philosophy, Zoe Baker and Anark (to keep in touch with few anarchist perspectives) and Unlearning economics (pretty great videos from a mostly post-Keynesian perspective).

The intro climate class sounds very interesting! Best of luck with that!


Kevin Stefanos wrote: "Kevin wrote: "“Our Changing Climate�:
--Yes! I’ve recently been playing more videos/podcasts while�"

Great list Kevin! I’ll have to check some of the first ones. Just to add a few: Andriewism, Jon..."


Cheers Stefanos, will add these to the list, I’ve only heard of Andrewism (from What is Politics) and Unlearning Economics (from Mexie), collabs and shout outs do work!

I’m also reminded of David Guignion’s “Theory and Philosophy� channel which does book reviews. He reviewed political economy from Smith’s tome, Ricardo’s tome, and Marx’s Capital V1-3 lol. Also has a ton of critical theory books which I would find challenging reading�


message 12: by Max (new) - rated it 3 stars

Max Mills I felt like this book spent too much space debunking the problematic uses of degrowth, space he could have used to explain his proposal


Kevin Max wrote: "I felt like this book spent too much space debunking the problematic uses of degrowth, space he could have used to explain his proposal"

Saito just had to proclaim “degrowth communism� at the start�
Meanwhile, Hickel (while clearly being anti-capitalist/anti-imperialist), avoids even mentioning the label “socialism� even once.
Unfortunately, the “degrowth� label triggers many concerns, so at this point it’s inevitable this will consume a lot of time if the book is not just targeting those already onboard.


back to top