“I have three priorities for our economy: growth, growth and growth.” Liz Truss’s pronouncement reverberated around the world. So, too, did her attacks on what she called an #antigrowthcoalition. @TheAntiGrowthC4
.@trussliz focus on economic growth is politically misleading, economically wrong-headed and profoundly outdated.
By putting growth at the centre of her political programme, she is invoking an economic ideology – the “growth paradigm” – that emerged during the 1950s
The growth paradigm became hegemonic by sustaining the idea that GDP growth is necessary as well as natural, inevitable and timeless.
The concept of growth has colonised our political imaginaries: it not only reinforces the dominance of economic thinking by rendering all political or social questions into economic problems (what could be called “economism”)…
… but it also strengthens the positions of technocrats within modern societies, ensuring the primacy of the economy over politics.
If growth makes for a good political soundbite – often articulated through tired metaphors like “rising tides” or “expanding pies” – a closer look reveals how disastrous its hegemony has been for modern societies. newstatesman.com/ideas/2022/10/…
Truss’s argument that stagnating wages and dwindling funds for social services are due to low growth is a deception.
Under Truss, British politics in the 21st century is stuck in the 1950s.
The left should embrace the term “anti-growth coalition” by creating a new consensus around a politics that critiques the abstractions of the growth paradigm, ...
... that liberates economic thinking from the putative “iron grip” of markets, and formulates policies that focus on what actually matters to people – living a dignified life on a finely balanced planet.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The critique of economic growth is as old as growth itself. And it’s not just about the more recent critique of GDP or about growth as a policy goal, but goes much deeper. How was growth criticized and by whom?
It starts from the premise that while critiques of growth are likely to shape future social conflicts around economics, environment, & politics, we know little about the diversity of exiting growth critiques or about their historical origins and longterm trajectories.
In fact, while economic growth is at the centre of not only of politics and public debates, but also of economics and other social sciences, we lack a coherent research agenda on the questioning, critique of and resistance against growth in a long-term perspective.
Being a provocative term, #degrowth is often misinterpreted or misrepresented, even by many who share its objectives.
After Starmer’s speech calling for ‘growth, growth, growth’, #degrowth is trending – a good time to discuss the most common misunderstandings. 🧵 based on book
This is based on our just published @VersoBooks with Andrea Vetter and @a_vansi. More info here 2/
1⃣ One common misconception is that degrowth is either a proposal for recession, imposed austerity, or that it will necessarily result in economic collapse and social catastrophe. 3/
"9 Euro sind nicht einfach nur ein Ticketpreis. 9 Euro heißt Entlastung bei steigenden Preisen, Mobilität für alle, Klimaschutz, Gemeinwohl und einen Schritt in die Zukunft."
Jetzt Verlängerung unterstützen: 9-euro-ticket-weiterfahren.de
Es gibt viele gute Gründe für den Erhalt des 9 Euro Tickets. Die Initiative 9 Euro Ticket Weiterfahren hat hier die neun besten Gründe zusammengestellt:
Is degrowth a neoliberal “politics of less” and ultimately against workers? These are the arguments in a new book by @Matthuber78.
Since we have a book coming out @VersoBooks too, we’ve been asked to engage. Fortunately, @PoliticOfNature has done this already - some thoughts 🧵
I have read Huber’s book "Climate Change as Class War: Building Socialism on a Warming Planet" and find many of his arguments really convincing – in particular where he discusses the need for broad strategic alliances, a materialist analyses, and class-based climate politics. 2/
In effect, many of the things he criticizes with respect to degrowth, are things that we also emphasize in our book with Andrea Vetter and @a_vansi
New study finds that the average carbon footprint in the top 1% of emitters is more than 75-times higher than that in the bottom 50%. The top 10% are contributing almost half of all emitted CO2. nature.com/articles/s4189…
Average country carbon footprints differ widely between countries – but must be drastically reduced in most regions to achieve climate targets.
In reducing emissions, we must mainly focus on the top 10% globally, who are responsible for almost half of all emmitted CO2.
We need equitable and sustainable degrowth. Here is our forthcoming book explaining this concept
50 years ago, the Club of Rome published its landmark report 'Limits to Growth'. Its scenarios, leading to a collapse of industrial growth by the 2040s, have sparked controversial debates - but also proved remarkably accurate ⬇️
In 2016, @ProfTimJackson@CUSP_uk published Limits Revisited: "There is unsettling evidence that society is still following the ‘standard run’ of the original study – in which overshoot leads to an eventual collapse of production and living standards." cusp.ac.uk/themes/p/limit…
In 2021, a @KPMG, one of the largest accounting firms in the world, found that the 1972 MIT study "appears to be accurate based on new empirical data."