UK degrowth website asking for feedback for political manifesto

[UndercoverElephant]

https://degrowthuk.org/2024/02/09/an-al ... -for-2024/

To take this forward, we’d really appreciate your help with the following things.

1) Feedback and suggestions. If you have specific and constructive feedback or suggestions, we’d really appreciate it. We will consider feedback carefully and try to take account of it. Please don’t share the documents without our agreement – we don’t want this unfinished work to enter the wider public domain until we have a final version.

I am still reading, will post my own feedback in a separate post.

[UndercoverElephant]

I have sent them this in an email:

I have spent my whole adult life (I am 56) thinking and talking about the realities of this. I will help in any way I can, but I am duty bound to give you honest feedback as to why your current proposal will not fly and should not be made public until the problems are fixed. This is politically extremely difficult -- much more so than you manifesto implies. The real solutions, in my opinion, require much more radical rethinking than even you are currently talking about.

I am also willing to help in promoting this. I am well known in the foraging/rewilding community because I am the UK's leading authority on fungi foraging, and author of the most comprehensive books on foraging for fungi and plants/seaweeds ever published in the UK. I have tried more than once to write a book about degrowth/ecocivilisation/collapse but each time I ran into fundamental problems either with my own argument or in producing a viable book. The problem is that the truth is just too hard a message to sell, even though, as a species, it is our destiny to finally figure it out. We aren't going extinct, because we're too clever and adaptable, and since no species can remain permanently out of balance with its ecosystem forever (evolution will make sure of that), and since we can't go back to hunter-gathering, ecocivilisation is the only possible long-term outcome. Sadly, "long term" is likely to mean very long term. The most comprehensive account of my own views, from a few years ago, is here: https://www.geoffdann.co.uk/on-collapse/

I am happy to read through your whole draft manifesto and provide feedback, but I'll start with your summary. I agreed with the majority of it, and can't offer much in the way of improvements. The problem is that lack of political realism. Yes, politics is going to have to radically change, but the nature of that change must and will be governed by constraints such as human nature, and aspects of our political systems which we cannot change. Humans aren't going to stop being selfish. We aren't going to stop demanding the right to compete with each other in all sorts of ways. In other words, Degrowth cannot be a leftist fantasy. Not if it is supposed to be a realistic manifesto for changing societies instead of just performative leftist virtue-signalling.

Note I said "societies". "Ecocivilisation" has been adopted by the CCP as the long-term goal and destiny of the Chinese people, but the Chinese took care to define it in terms of the final state "for a given society", thus implicitly acknowledging that the path to ecocivilisation for an authoritarian post-communist state is going to be fundamentally different to that of a western liberal democracy. This difference is crucial, since the CCP does not have to worry about actually getting elected. This is a show-stopping problem for your project. Some quote that stand out as red flags:

"Ensure that everyone has access to sufficient energy to maintain health, comfort and dignity and that nobody squanders or takes more than their fair share of energy."

What does "fair" mean? This is crucial. The left has historically made the mistake of defining "fair" in terms of outcomes. We need to make clear that "fair" must be in terms of the rules of the game, not its outcome. There have to be winners and losers. This is not just because the world isn't big enough to accomodate 8 billion humans, but because there have to be penalties for getting this wrong and rewards for getting it right. In other words, we need to change the rules of the game such that people who behave in ways conducive to creating an ecocivilisation are rewarded, and people who are obstructing it are punished. We cannot get rid of free-ish markets. Rather, we have to rig those markets in ways that cause net movements towards true sustainability.

"Economic and financial governance (macroeconomics, tax, finance, business) - The judicious use of government borrowing, although that will mean an increase in medium to long-term national debt, is a sound way to finance much of the necessary transformative investment. Shift taxes so they focus on the use of energy and resources, wealth, property and land value, while greatly improving redistribution. Reform financial institutions and business governance so that these sectors more fully serve the interests of people and planet."

This isn't going to be enough. Nothing short of a complete rethink of money itself is going to be required. The work of Anthropologist Alf Hornborg is important here: Nature, Society, and Justice in the Anthropocene: Unraveling the Money-Energy-Technology Complex (New Directions in Sustainability and Society): DODGY TAX AVOIDERS.co.uk: Hornborg, Alf: 9781108429375: Books

"Resilience and democratic civil security - Redirect much defence spending towards civil defence and away from offensive activities and industries, so that citizens can count on structured and responsive help to both forestall and respond to emergencies caused by the ecological and climate collapse and increasing instability of the geopolitical environment."

NO! This is pure fantasy. Look at what is going on in the world. Do you think expansionist regimes such as those of Vladimir Putin on Benjamin Netanyahu are going to sign up to your manifesto? We cannot implement ecocivilisation if we cannot defend ourselves -- or more specifically if we cannot be part of a defensive alliance which can defend itself. If Corbyn had won in 2019 then the UK would probably by now be dismantling our armed forces at exactly the time the world is sliding towards WW3.

If Degrowth is to become a REALISTIC political movement then it has to rid itself not just of right wing fantasising about infinite growth but of leftist fantasising about socio-political change. We cannot teach the world to sing.

Which leads us to:

"Climate Justice and the Global South As a global actor, the UK must exert a positive influence to secure climate justice and a world where people are protected from the worst impacts of the multiple eco-geopolitical crises is in everyone’s interests.. Meet the UK's responsibility to support the Global South financially and address both current and historical injustices related to climate impacts. "

Again, this is pure fantasy. We cannot save 8 billion people, and we cannot change the dynamics of world politics set up by the brute reality that the world is divided into 250-odd sovereign states. We have no world government, and no world bodies with power to change anything. We cannot even move in that direction without a new globalised monetary system, but that is a long way off. If you try to sell degrowth in terms of "the rich countries need to contract, while allowing the poor countries to grow to catch up" then all you will achieve is to confirm "degrowth" to be completely detached from reality. The only viable path to global ecocivilisation is via national forms of ecocivilisation. In other words, independent sovereign states need to transform themselves in ways that make them ecologically sustainable, and only when the benefits of this become clear can a global political movement emerge, bringing these emerging eco-states together into a global framework. In other words, we need to acknowledge that the future is about NATIONAL SURVIVAL. That is rank heresy in degrowth circles, because it is associated with the political right. But again, look at what is happening in the world. Do you want a message you can sell? Do you actually want to implement real change in real societies? If so, you need to acknowledge that the left is out of ideas and that public opinion is relentlessly moving in the other direction, away from globalisation, back towards "national renewal". The bottom line is that if you tell people we've got big problems and that you have a plan to save them, their societies, and their countries, then they will listen, but if you tell them your plan is to prioritise people in poorer, faraway countries then the reaction will be anger. The degrowth movement needs to accept that that anger is not just understandable, but entirely justified.

"Lobby for the necessary reform of international trade"

See Alf Hornborg. We need to reform the monetary system.

"Our manifesto is both bold and realistic. "

It is neither bold enough nor realistic enough. I am offering my services to help achieve these things, but the people trying to lead this transformation have got to be willing to face reality themselves.

[Catweazle]

UE, that's a very perceptive and realistic post, it reports exactly the opinions I have seen expressed by the BAU crowd.

[UndercoverElephant]

UE, that's a very perceptive and realistic post, it reports exactly the opinions I have seen expressed by the BAU crowd.

Thanks. So far they have not replied to my email.

[Potemkin Villager]

UE, that's a very perceptive and realistic post, it reports exactly the opinions I have seen expressed by the BAU crowd.

Thanks. So far they have not replied to my email.

Maybe they have been snowed under?

[UndercoverElephant]

They have posted an update: https://degrowthuk.org/2024/04/22/getti ... le-crisis/

[Potemkin Villager]

They have posted an update: https://degrowthuk.org/2024/04/22/getti ... le-crisis/

I do admire your fortitude in exploring so many potentially promising but often unrewarding avenues in your quest.

This one is a totally underwhelming web experience which should contain a 36 pt bold health warning. The more I tried to read it the more I lost the will to live so I stopped. Would almost think they are trying to wear down, bore and dispirit folk to give up all hope.

For those not in the know there is no clue given as to who "UK degrowth community" actually are, what their day jobs are or how they envisage achieving their aims.

It probably makes sense if you are already in their inner circle where we might expect to find an Aleister Crowley like figure I would wager..

[UndercoverElephant]

It probably makes sense if you are already in their inner circle where we might expect to find an Aleister Crowley like figure I would wager..

I think there would be a clearer overall picture if there was somebody like Crowley driving it. I think the problem is that what brings groups like this together is a shared awareness of the scale of the problems, and many shared ideas about what the causes are, but without anything resembling a realistic solution, let alone agreement on what the solution should be.

No political manifesto is going to change anything anyway. I think something more fundamental is required - a new meta-ideology. Something like a test for ideologies to see whether they are compatible with any form of sustainable civilisation. In other words something that comes before the politics even starts, to establish the ground rules for ideological debate and reform.

[Potemkin Villager]

So did they ever reply to your email?

Have you formed any idea who it is exactly you are trying to communicate with
or does it seem like an anonymous blob of uncertain provenance? Are they for real or darkside I wonder.

An old eco warrior friend of mine describes the defining characteristics of many groups in this area as being
focused on activities rather than outcomes. Our local authority, for example, has produced a very impressive looking document
describing the structures, reporting mechanisms etc of how it intends to address climate issues but without saying
what it wishes to achieve or how the unspecified desired outcomes will be achieved by all the meetings anticipated.

I've been at this game too long.

[UndercoverElephant]

So did they ever reply to your email?

No.

Have you formed any idea who it is exactly you are trying to communicate with
or does it seem like an anonymous blob of uncertain provenance? Are they for real or darkside I wonder.

I have no idea who they are. I personally don't suspect any bad motives. They are dealing with an almost impossible set of problems, as are many of us here.

An old eco warrior friend of mine describes the defining characteristics of many groups in this area as being
focused on activities rather than outcomes. Our local authority, for example, has produced a very impressive looking document
describing the structures, reporting mechanisms etc of how it intends to address climate issues but without saying
what it wishes to achieve or how the unspecified desired outcomes will be achieved by all the meetings anticipated.

Yes. But I think this applies to a lot of contemporary politics. It's a lot easier to agree on activities and procedures than it is on outcomes.

I've been at this game too long.

So have I, but apart from learning how to run our smallholding I have nothing else to do these days. The frustrating thing for me is that I genuinely believe I've found at least some of the solutions, but I have not been able to find a way to adequately explain the true nature of the problems that we need to solve. The closer you get to the real answers, the more resistance there is to allowing people to even ask the real questions. It is both very complicated and emotionally/ethically demanding, and most people are far too busy living their lives or focusing on more immediate and simpler practical problems.

[Potemkin Villager]

So did they ever reply to your email?

No.

That is pretty underwhelming not to say fecking rude given the effort that went into your reply.

Perhaps you have scared them and they feel you might show them up! Maybe they are seriously bereft and trawling for ideas.
My better half did an app software training course years ago where the participants were encouraged to develop their ideas
on the trainers platform. All the participants eventually concluded the best ideas were being plagarised by the "training organisation"!

I continue to mull over these issues on background and will post again if I have a eureka moment.

[UndercoverElephant]

That is pretty underwhelming not to say fecking rude given the effort that went into your reply.

Perhaps you have scared them and they feel you might show them up! Maybe they are seriously bereft and trawling for ideas.
My better half did an app software training course years ago where the participants were encouraged to develop their ideas
on the trainers platform. All the participants eventually concluded the best ideas were being plagarised by the "training organisation"!

I continue to mull over these issues on background and will post again if I have a eureka moment.

I am not taking it personally. And I don't mind people stealing my ideas on this particular set of topics.

All I know is that there is a growing need for some new ideas breaking out into the mainstream -- more and more people are getting more and more worried about the future, for all sorts of inter-related reasons. And no shortage of people trying to come up with solutions, but the thinking is never sufficiently realistic or joined up.

From my own perspective I am seeing this more and more as a western-specific cultural problem, even though the most intractable ecological problems are inescapably global. I remain convinced that democracy, free speech and philosophical liberalism are worth saving, and that trying to save them is the only game in town from a western perspective. But that means there has to be a cultural-political shift driven by a groundswell of opinion from the grass roots instead of being imposed from the top down. Right now we're going in the opposite direction -- the opposition to the status quo is already shattered and become ever more so. Part of the answer is an acceptance of collapse as a pre-requisite for the rebuild (can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, and in this case the eggs will deeply resist being broken, but eventually they are doomed to break). Part of the answer is much better ecological literacy ("ecolacy"). But even if we could magically make everybody in the west aware of the scale and nature of the problems, we'd still have to convince them to vote for the solutions. I don't see how that's going to be possible without some new sort religion or quasi-religion. The Chinese have turned to Taoism for this purpose, but that's too Chinese for the west. We need something new, explicitly western, and directly designed with collapse and ecocivilisation in mind.

[RevdTess]

I'm very much onboard with your perspective on this UE. Maybe it's just a feature of getting older, but I keep seeing the eco-movement in general getting lost in idealisms and ideology that they still expect everyone to fall in line with because 'it's so obviously correct'. Not so many years ago, leftist (especially anarchist) movements were in the vanguard against globalisation. Now it's the right-wing groups who are anti-globalist, and leftists who are somehow expecting the world to come together to do the right thing. Like you I think human selfishness has to be taken as a complete given and if a proposed way forward to ecocivilisation doesn't work in that context then it's not going to work at all.

Given that my day-job is as a representative of a religion that seeks to guide people towards a more compassionate and less selfish life, I am sad that I can't see any sustainable way towards sustainable ecocivilisation except to offer solutions that assume and make use of self-interest, rather than come out of generosity and kind-heartedness.

It's instructive how little the 'even-greater-than-feared' rise in global temperatures has triggered changes in behaviour in wealthy nations. All the catastrophising has simply led to most people shrugging and then going back to whatever they were doing. The frog is never going to jump out of the slowly heating pot until it's too late. I hate to look for technology rather than social transformation for solutions but tidal power, geothermal and fusion seem the only way to cut off carbon burning, if they ever work at scale. The more a society struggles, the more authoritarian, rigid, and selfish it seems to become. It appears that it's only in times of plenty that social justice and generosity flourish.

One of the innovations in recent years that I've found helpful both from a selfish and an eco perspective is the ability of companies like Octopus to show us through smart meters how much energy we're using every half hour, and even charge different amounts each half-hour, so you can shift usage to not only avoid high-carbon periods but also save a ton of money. Joining up selfish financial gain with the art of paying attention to the availability of low-carbon energy seems to me to be a win-win.

[dustiswhatweare]

I am sad that I can't see any sustainable way towards sustainable ecocivilisation except to offer solutions that assume and make use of self-interest, rather than come out of generosity and kind-heartedness.

That is an excellent summary of how humans work. We are, en masse, selfish, unable to make helpful sensible long term decisions. Individual acts of kindness/generosity exist, but en masse? We are not grown ups, we are very badly flawed. Our undoing will be our own doing. No Gods to blame here. We dun it.

[RevdTess]

Mark H Burton (who appears to be the main author of the degrowthuk website) wrote an article back in the heady days of Corbynite Labour in 2019 arguing that the Labour Party might be moving towards degrowth ideas as policy. How long ago that now feels.

https://renewal.org.uk/wp-content/uploa ... burton.pdf